. They just love him, don’t they? I refer to Vladimir Putin and the BBC. I was watching the 10 Ten O Clock news and the BBC was slobbering over the communist thug and his all powerful command of what is happening in Georgia. Then we were presented with the revelation that only the French diplomats can save the day! My god, what next – the Belgium army to act as peace-keepers? Of course what REALLY concerns me is that the curious lack of street demos from the “anti-war peace activists” who infested our streets when we toppled the butcher of Baghdad. But now Putin is using power to bully and crush..ssssshhhh, say nothing and the BBC will ask no tricky questions. Now, back to the Olympics and leave the French to sort it all out… just another rainy night in Georgia.
PUTIN POWER
Bookmark the permalink.
And the rest
“no doubt you want the perpetrators brought to justice [for looting and burning].”
I think it would be a good thing, but there is no evidence the Kremlin ordered or expcted such actions where there was evidence the KLA were ordered back into Kosovo, and that white house spokesmen knew they would attack and kill Serbs, which they did.
“He was not arrested he was suspended temporally when his friend and criminal Kevin Taylor made false allegations against him”
Provide evidence for this. Taylor was acquitted and paid more than £1,000,000 in compensation by Greater Manchester Police.
“When allegations are made against police you think they should not be suspended”
Yes, including the RUC.
“Going to give us a reference like before???? You yourself don’t seem to know a lot about it.”
Yes, read John Stalker’s book. He was found guilty of nothing.
“In 1973, the Catholic coroner said this with the accusations that his religion, and the influence of the Catholic Church affected this decision”
Idiot. Been browsing extremist websites or something? Catholics incapable of impartiality, but protestant policemen perfectly capable.
“Yes, an increased chance of missing their target when dropped from high altitude. Do you dispute the point or not??? Or is modern warfare and “collateral damage” right up your street.”
What an ignoramus.I really am enjoying watching your pitiful little mind implode.
When commenting, do B-BBC the courtesy of researching the subject.It is pathetic watching you flounder about in your cesspit of ignorance.
“If it is good for the goose (Serbia) it’s good for the gander (Georgia).”
Two wrongs don’t make a right,if we are exchanging platitudes.If,as you assert Kosovo/Serbia was immoral,then so is the invasion of Georgia.If the invasion of Georgia is not, then, by that standard neither was the other.
Why didn’t Russia invade China to save Tibet?
“What an ignoramus.I really am enjoying watching your pitiful little mind implode. Peter | 14.08.08 – 5:07 pm”
Yawn. I’ve provided links to show they were bombing from high altitude and were more likely to miss. You have provided nothing except profanities and heckling.
“If,as you assert Kosovo/Serbia was immoral,then so is the invasion of Georgia.”
Illiegal, yes, but international law doesn’t seem to matter. Did you agree with the bombing of Serbia or not?
“Why didn’t Russia invade China to save Tibet?”
Why didn’t the US?
“Yawn. I’ve provided links to show they were bombing from high altitude and were more likely to miss. You have provided nothing except profanities and heckling.”
No, you keep wittering that NATO was dropping cluster bombs from high altitude.But carry on,I find you wonderfully stupid.
“Why didn’t the US?”
They don’t share a common border.
It is quite obvious that Putin has no concern about liberating countries for moral reasons.
“They don’t share a common border.
It is quite obvious that Putin has no concern about liberating countries for moral reasons. Peter | 14.08.08 – 6:58 pm”
The US don’t share a border with Serbia. Their NATO ally, Turkey, was guilty of human rights abuses against the Kurds, but the US did not intervene there. It’s quite clear the US has no interest in intervention for moral reasons.
The Russians went into South Ossetia because their own citizens were there. Your border analogy is flawed.
“The world can forget Georgia’s territorial integrity”,Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov
“Yes, an increased chance of missing their target when dropped from high altitude.”
proof they where dropped from high altitude
Ivan3 Pinpoint accuracy is not much of an issue with cluster bombs.
“proof they where dropped from high altitude
Ivan3 | 14.08.08 – 8:08 pm”
Again, read the Guardian link I provided earlier.
So,Buller,you get your information from that left wing rag the Guardian,and you expect to be taken seriously?
Bully-boy
“John Bull:
“Where are the court orders to justify blocking access to Russian internet sites which the Georgians have been doing?”….Prove they are, and then if you can do that, which you cannot then prove it is against the law, in a war to block access to enemy site…prove it is against the law, or shut up. the Russians are attacking Georgian internet site, see http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=108&sid=1457507,
“I thought that was a Chinese thing.”….It is
“I’m not on here as an Amnesty international spokesman, but I think anyone should be brought to justice for murdering journalists, including NATO.”…..Does that include Russia?
“Provide quotes from me where I have said so.” …..As I’ve kept posting direct quote from you, with links I’ll not bother, you say that if people are a ‘dubious’, (your word) and criticize Russia they should not be surprised if Russia has them killed. You’ve said it and you keep denying it when anyone can see your words in your own posts is silly.
“So you agree that those Chechens who did not murder the innocent children in Beslam are not terrorists…if so stop calling them that”…….”Don’t instruct me. I judge people on their actions. Where people deliberately target civilians. The US, UK, NATO, Turkey, Russia or anyone else • I will call them terrorists when I choose. ”
I thought you loved a strong leader!!! But you never call the murderers of innocent people, journalists, children, civilians, terrorists if they where killed by Russians…most informative
“Yes it [bombing of Serbia] was a legal action.”….Disputed by experts, of which you are not one. “…..How do you know? Which experts, go on astound us…or are you going to fake these experts like you did last time??? That is pretty funny in a very sad way.
“What about all the other trials of British forces regarding murder and human rights abuse”…”In Northern Ireland. Name them, including those brought to trial for collusion, involvement in the murder of Pat Finucane, torture of suspects etc.”…There is the Bloody Sunday Inquiry for a start, the inquiry into the death of Billy Wright, and others, obviously you don’t give cases of Russian trials of its military or state apparatus….odd that….if you know who killed the lawyer report it to the police immediately so they can be brought to justice….who murdered all those Russian journalists and where is their inquiry prey tell. Look at the years it has taken to charge the murderer of the poor Rachel Nichol…ten years….government conspiracy!!!!!!!!
“You actually said,….’I believe the Hague is a politically motivated court, which fails to prosecute Muslim butchers from the Balkans’”…..I know. I explained above, but you can go around in circles……”Prove The Hague is not fair or free. It is an open court with observers present. It also deals with all sides, with Muslims not being immune as you stated previously”…..”Why aren’t Turkey in indicted for their human rights abuses against Kurds?” …It is a court that deals with crimes in the former Yugoslavia, Turkey isn’t in Yugoslavia
“Why are suspected war criminals from Kosovo released on bail when Serbs are not?”….Prove it…or is like your other ‘fact’ that Muslims are not tried at The Hague, which is a lie.
“Why are butchers from Bosnia not indicted?”….They are and have been convicted. I hope that all those guilty are given a fair trial over the coming years.
“You give good reasons, and I’ll agree that it is a fair, and not a politically motivated court.”….It was set up with Russian, and Chinese consent under the UN’s auspices…..prove it is
“Just that the West is worse than Russia, same thing.”….”No, that the west is just as bad. Selling arms to butchers across the world, bombing journalists in Belgrade, the US like to torture people these days, and drop cluster bombs when they know they are likely to be inaccurate.”…..Prove it please…just because you say something is true tends to prove it is a lie… prove it is illegal. Following on from your “reasoning” we can commit genocide as the Russians do so it is OK…. Can you really not see there are gradations of ‘badness’ if not I would seek therapy…don’t worry this is not Russia so you wont be forcibly committed like those Russian journalist.
“just because you where invaded does not mean you should just shut up and take it”….”So you support Kosovo being given back to the Serbs with Serbs having the right to return to their homes?”….If the population vote to return to Serbia in an open and fair vote I’d be fine with it, but since the Serbs tried to commit genocide against them and have murdered and persecuted them for decades, I don’t think they would vote to do so, especially since they have voted for independence…you really don’t get this democracy thing…people are not there to be ‘given back’ people express their views in a fair vote….do you agree that Chechnya, and all those republic who are part of Russia today due to invasion should be given a free vote to secede then?
“The book was published in 1993! Serbia was attacked in 1999.”….”Christine Gray has published many books”
Though not the one you cite which was written by Anthony C Arend, which does not support your case at all. All a rather pathetic ruse to back up your lie, as I said sad.
“with many additions and HAS argued that the attack on Serbia was illegal under international law.”….Proof please…even if Prof. Gray does say so where is your other experts • plural you mention? She did write that masterly paper ‘”Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Bosnia and Herzegovina v Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)” [1994] 43 International and Comparative Law Quarterly pp.704 – 714;’ which examined the best way to stop genocide, out of her 55 works are you referring to?? As she never calls the operation illegal in any of them
“I don’t need to read Tony Benn’s diaries to know he is vehemently anti-war.”… So he is. He is also not a lawyer and is a hypocrite who has been wrong about everything during the course of his career. It is amazing you can ‘know’ what people think without reading their works…so your mindreading skills are still there!!!
“You asked for an expert (not a particular book) who thought the war was illegal. I gave you one. You search her books if you are interested.”……she’s only wrote two both predate the operation in Serbia. I asked for your experts…the book you gave, a proper and weighty tome, does not say the war was illegal. The UN does not say it was illegal (nor does Russia) so you are talking rubbish this action was legal as it had a UN mandate to happen. A mandate backed by your beloved Russia. It is a legal act…the Russian invasion of Georgia is an illegal one as it has no mandate from the UN
“Prove that NATO did, what if Russia targeted civilians with normal bombs…that is murder too, don’t you agree??”….”If they did so from an altitude where they knew they were likely to be inaccurate with that particular weapon then yes. Now do you agree that NATO doing the same is murder?”….Prove this was so as I don’t believe you and need proof. You don’t mention Russia of course… so even if it was proved that Russia deliberately murdered civilians that is OK is it??
“You have no proof that they where used at high/medium level. So prove it or shut up.”…”This is / was common knowledge. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/…jul/28/ balkans2″
The article was about the compensation of civilian victims…you know people killed by accident, standing next to a tank when it was attacked, being run down by a NATO truck, having food parcels dropped on them, killed by accident. It does not refer to the deliberate murder of civilians at all. The article talks about the innocent victims of what it refers to as ‘collateral damage’, not willful murder.
“Where have you said that the perpetrators of the genocide in Chechnya should be brought to justice?”…That is different to attributing comments to me that “Russians should be able to murder hundreds of thousand of people.” …..So call for them to be brought to justice as you never have so far.
“An illegal act to enter a sovereign state”….If it is good for the goose (Serbia) it’s good for the gander (Georgia).”….The war on Serbia was legal under UN law, supported by Russia; the attack on Georgia is an illegal war
Bully-boy,
I appreciate that you are a little slow so we’ll take nice and slow.
John Bull:
“Inaccurate cluster bombs,I have heard it all now..” Peter | 14.08.08 – 11:42 am”
“Yes, an increased chance of missing their target when dropped from high altitude. Do you dispute the point or not??? Or is modern warfare and “collateral damage” right up your street.”
The controversy with the use of cluster bombs was not that they where used against civilian targets. The argument is that there where used against military targets, but that a small portion of the sub-bomb lets (about 5% or less) which where used against military targets failed to detonate. This lead to the argument that IF they where not cleared properly they could at a future date be picked up by a civilian. That is the argument not that they where dropped at any specific height….really if you are going to make an argument, however facile, read up about it… there is no evidence that this caused any problem or deaths because NATO forces started clearing the unexploded munitions (NATO and Serb) immediately. Is that clear enough bully-bob, or is it too complex for your febrile little brain???
bull
“John Bull:
“no doubt you want the perpetrators brought to justice [for looting and burning].”…I think it would be a good thing, but there is no evidence the Kremlin ordered or expcted such actions”
So what… looting or murder is a crime and the perpetrators should be tried…read the above posts regarding the actions of individuals versus the actions of states…looting is crime committed by criminals. These criminals should be brought to justice.. It does not matter if it committed by individuals or not…such actions are illegal under the Geneva Convention, and Russian law….the perpetrators should be tried
“where there was evidence the KLA were ordered back into Kosovo, and that white house spokesmen knew they would attack and kill Serbs, which they did.”
What are you talking about you idiot…the UN, US, Russia, insisted that all forces where disarmed. See the UN resolution I posted previously…if you know different PROVE it.
“He was not arrested he was suspended temporally when his friend and criminal Kevin Taylor made false allegations against him”….Provide evidence for this. Taylor was acquitted and paid more than £1,000,000 in compensation by Greater Manchester Police.”
He was innocent so he was compensated, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stalker, Kevin Taylor DID allege that Stalker had committed a crime, and at that time he had been arrested for a crime and was awaiting trial when Stalker was suspended….should that allegation not have been investigated??? If anyone made an allegation of a crime against a policeman it should be investigated.
“When allegations are made against police you think they should not be suspended”…Yes, including the RUC.”
They where…by the way the RUC being disbanded nearly a decade ago…and you are a NI expert!!!!!!
“Going to give us a reference like before???? You yourself don’t seem to know a lot about it.” ….Yes, read John Stalker’s book. He was found guilty of nothing.”
As I said previously, he was proved innocent…there where allegations of crimes against him that had to be investigated…..or do you have a list of people who are above the law?????
“In 1973, the Catholic coroner said this with the accusations that his religion, and the influence of the Catholic Church affected this decision”
“Idiot. Been browsing extremist websites or something?”
The BBC news website http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/northern_ireland/2000/bloody_sunday_inquiry/670804.stm
“Catholics incapable of impartiality, but protestant policemen perfectly capable.”
And you know my religion how??? I never said I disagreed with him just what the criticism leveled against him was, the allegation was that the testimony of Catholic Priests influenced him …where have I said that Protestant policemen are always impartial do prove the evidence…
We await the new Inquiry results and hope that there is no such criticism and hope for justice to be done…as I said in a previous post.
So what about Russia’s crimes…where is your evidence that where investigated?
“’I thought that was a Chinese thing.’….It is”
And a Georgian thing. Georgians hacked Russian sites as well, but the Russians have not blocked internet access. So much for freedom of speech in Georgia.
“You’ve said it and you keep denying it [saying that it is OK to kill hundreds of thousands of people] when anyone can see your words in your own posts is silly.”
Stop babbling, and provide the quote. You say I have said it is OK to kill hundreds of thousands of people, now provide the quote.
“I thought you loved a strong leader!!! But you never call the murderers of innocent people, journalists, children, civilians, terrorists if they where killed by Russians”
But I had said. In the same post you quoted “Where people deliberately target civilians. The US, UK, NATO, Turkey, Russia or anyone else • I will call them terrorists when I choose.” So you are babbling again. Posting replies for the sake of replying.
“How do you know? Which experts, go on astound us…or are you going to fake these experts like you did last time???”
You’re babbling again now and replying for the sake of replying. Christine D Gray is a Professor in International Law and says NATO action was illegal. You are an idiot.
“There is the Bloody Sunday Inquiry for a start,” “if you know who killed the lawyer report it to the police immediatel”
Amnesty international say the have no faith in any British inquiry into the murder of Pat Finucance. Obviously the British state is so respected with its actions in Northern Ireland that not even Amnesty trust them. Before you ask, Google it yourself you loser.
“It is a court [the Hague] that deals with crimes in the former Yugoslavia, Turkey isn’t in Yugoslavia”
Wrong. Go to Wikipedia and educate yourself.
“Following on from your “reasoning” we can commit genocide as the Russians do so it is OK”
Stop babbling and educate youself. The US is legally entitled to commit genocide because they are not a signatory to laws forbidding genocide. Before you ask,Google it yourself, you loser.
“If the population vote to return to Serbia in an open and fair vote I’d be fine with it” So ethnic cleansing of Serbs is democratic. Check the history of the place.
“Proof please…even if Prof. Gray does say so where is your other experts • plural you mention?
You asked for an expert and I gave you one. She is cited in another academic study and says it is illegal http://www.hanselawreview.org/pdf2/Vol1No2Art3.pdf You have still not provided any sources, but then you are an idiot.
“It is amazing you can ‘know’ what people think without reading their works…so your mindreading skills are still there”
No, it’s called an interview.
“The article talks about the innocent victims of what it refers to as ‘collateral damage’, not willful murder.”
It is about NATO dropping bombs from high altitude. That was what you asked for, but you didn’t spot it the first time when you read the article so you shift the goalposts.
“The war on Serbia was legal under UN law, supported by Russia”
Russia would never support a war on Serbia. If you claim they did then prove Serbia explicitly backed a war against Serbia, with sources • preferably Russian sources.
“The controversy with the use of cluster bombs was not that they where used against civilian targets. The argument is that there where used against military targets, but that a small portion of the sub-bomb lets (about 5% or less) which where used against military targets failed to detonate. This lead to the argument that IF they where not cleared properly they could at a future date be picked up by a civilian.”
You Googled and got it wrong. There was also controversy about NATO dropping bombs from high altitude which would be more likely to miss their targets and hit civilians (which NATO knew). From Human Rights Watch “These rules raise questions about the conduct of NATO’s bombing in light of its decision to have most of its pilots fly at high altitudes (above 15,000 feet) to avoid anti-aircraft missiles and fire. NATO could appropriately conclude that, because of its desire to avoid additional risks to its pilots, it would refrain from attacking certain targets because it could not adequately verify that they were appropriate military targets or take adequate steps to avoid endangering civilians. But it is troubling that in some cases NATO has apparently decided to elevate the protection of its pilots over all consideration of the potential harm to civilians”
See you are dumb and your Googling did not help you. You need to try harder http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/Kosovo/Kosovo-Current%20News176.htm
“where there was evidence the KLA were ordered back into Kosovo, and that white house spokesmen knew they would attack and kill Serbs”
Go and see the German TV documentary “It started with a lie”.
And the rest:
“Kevin Taylor DID allege that Stalker had committed a crime, and at that time he had been arrested for a crime and was awaiting trial when Stalker was suspended”
You are so thick it is incredible You went to Wikipedia, tried to read up on John Stalker and were unable to read properly. Wikipedia actually says: “His temporary suspension from duty and removal from the inquiry in 1986, based on false allegations that Kevin Taylor, an acquaintance of his, was a professional criminal, caused considerable public outcry.” Why are you so excited about defending a lack of justice for people in Northern Ireland when you claim to be concerned about it in Russia?
“They where…by the way the RUC being disbanded nearly a decade ago…and you are a NI expert”
They were still in existence when John Stalker made allegations against senior officers but was taken off the case. That was my point. You are again too dense to get the point.
“So what about Russia’s crimes…where is your evidence that where investigated?”
I was never here to defend crimes in Russia. Only to point out the hypocrisy of the west, but you were too dense to see that.
Bull
“John Bull:
“’I thought that was a Chinese thing.’….It is”…And a Georgian thing. Georgians hacked Russian sites as well, but the Russians have not blocked internet access. So much for freedom of speech in Georgia.”
We need proof as you don’t seem closely associated with truth. Secondly such actions are in a war under a state of emergency are not illegal, the act of declaring a war or a state of emergency when under attack things which are totally unacceptable in peacetime happen (censorship, conscription, etc.) in a war such things are legal, ad but true, and that is part of being at war is…glad to see you admit that Russia is attacking Georgian computers…if Georgia does censor content at least they do not murder journalist they disagree with like Russia does.
” You say I have said it is OK to kill hundreds of thousands of people, now provide the quote.”
‘don’t instruct me’ to quote your good self…see the above posts, and the posts in the other thread. The FACT is you have NEVER condemned the genocide in Chechnya. Condemn these atrocities and call for the perpetrators to be punished.
“Where people deliberately target civilians. The US, UK, NATO, Turkey, Russia or anyone else • I will call them terrorists when I choose.”
You never choose to call the acts committed by Russians acts of terror or the perpetrators terrorists….not ‘choosing’ to condemn is supporting the acts.
“Christine D Gray is a Professor in International Law and says NATO action was illegal. You are an idiot.”
Where do she say it PROVE IT. I am not going to take the word of a person who lied in a previous post when they provided expert testimony to support your case that did nothing of the case. It is odd you did not mention Prof Gray at all, so provide the evidence….where are the experts • i.e., more than one.
“There is the Bloody Sunday Inquiry for a start,” “if you know who killed the lawyer report it to the police immediatel”….”Amnesty international say the have no faith in any British inquiry into the murder of Pat Finucance.”
And? They absolutely loath Russian abuses, you don’t mention that I notice. What Amnesty said, after Kenneth Barret was found GUILTY of the murder that there should be a study into the wider social and political factors of the murder…..the murderer was convicted though.
“It is a court [the Hague] that deals with crimes in the former Yugoslavia, Turkey isn’t in Yugoslavia”….”Wrong. Go to Wikipedia and educate yourself.”
The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, was formed in 1993, originally proposed by German Foreign Minister Klaus Kinkel and established by Resolution 827 of the United Nations Security Council, which was passed on May 25, 1993. It has jurisdiction over four clusters of crime committed on the territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Tribunal_for_the_former_Yugoslavia the official website of this organization is http://www.un.org/icty/
I’m sorry this is pathetic…you call me an idiot…what does that make you??? You can read I take it, or do you just have trouble understanding…I see you’ve got over your horror of using insults, you those you whined about to Peter!!! Or can you dole them out but are too precious to take tem???
“The US is legally entitled to commit genocide because they are not a signatory to laws forbidding genocide. Before you ask,Google it yourself, you loser.”
So that’s all right then!!! Who knew after the genocide of the Jews in WW2 no one thought to close that loophole….no wait The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, was signed by the UN in 1948 http://www.un.org/millennium/law/iv-1.htm , in part the convention says
“The Convention defines genocide as any of a number of acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group….. The Convention also declares that there shall be no immunity. Persons committing this crime shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals. … Furthermore, the Convention stipulates that persons charged with genocide shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory in which the act was committed or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to the Contracting Parties.’
The US have agreed to the convention by the by. More than this since 12 Jan 1951 the Convention came into force this means that it does not matter if the US, or anyone else do not sign are AUTOMATICALLY bound by it, they have no protection, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Genocide_Convention , you’re not very bight are you?
Under the Geneva Convention of 1949 acts of genocide are crimes of universal jurisdiction; this includes ethnic cleansing by the way see http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/5xfp5a?opendocument
The UN ruled on 11 July 1996 (ICJ Reports 1993,) rejected Serbia’s case that genocide was not a crime that needed intervention by international forces and that the nature of the crime of genocide is so heinous that there is universal jurisdiction in stopping and punishing it see also http://www.un.org/law/icjsum/9328.htm .
“Proof please…even if Prof. Gray does say so where is your other experts • plural you mention?…You asked for an expert and I gave you one. She is cited in another academic study and says it is illegal http://www.hanselawreview.org/ pd…Vol1No2Art3.pdf You have still not provided any sources, but then you are an idiot.”
Except the UN text of the Resolution…I am very well aware of the text. Prof Gray does not say it is an ILLEGAL action, she says that there should have been a more exact wording of the Resolution…..there is a difference between a poorly written resolution than it being an action is illegal. The article is all about strengthening the wording of resolutions. It does NOT say these (Rwanda, etc., as well as Kosovo) are crimes, or wrong, etc. you mention experts i.e. more than one, where are they?
“The article talks about the innocent victims of what it refers to as ‘collateral damage’, not willful murder.”….It is about NATO dropping bombs from high altitude. That was what you asked for, but you didn’t spot it the first time when you read the article so you shift the goalposts.”
It does not say they where killed on purpose or that it were an illegal act.
“The war on Serbia was legal under UN law, supported by Russia”… Russia would never support a war on Serbia. If you claim they did then prove Serbia explicitly backed a war against Serbia, with sources • preferably Russian sources.”
So you know the minds of Russian politicians, and can forecast the future do you. Do you speak Russian?? The resolution which authorized the action was supported by Russia, if it where not they would have vetoed it. If they vetoed it the operation would not have happened. They did not and the resolution passed.
“You Googled and got it wrong. There was also controversy about NATO dropping bombs from high altitude which would be more likely to miss their targets and hit civilians (which NATO knew). From Human Rights Watch “These rules raise questions about the conduct of NATO’s bombing in light of its decision to have most of its pilots fly at high altitudes (above 15,000 feet) to avoid anti-aircraft missiles and fire. NATO could appropriately conclude that, because of its desire to avoid additional risks to its pilots, it would refrain from attacking certain targets because it could not adequately verify that they were appropriate military targets or take adequate steps to avoid endangering civilians. But it is troubling that in some cases NATO has apparently decided to elevate the protection of its pilots over all consideration of the potential harm to civilians”….See you are dumb and your Googling did not help you. You need to try harder http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/Kosovo/…t% 20News176.htm
They do not say it was illegal, or wrong, just ‘troubling’…you keep blathering about an ILEGAL act • a CRIME. “Troubling” that’s it, it does not call for prosecutions, or even asks for clarification of the weapon system and targeting…..controversy is not a crime…..you seem to think it is
“where there was evidence the KLA were ordered back into Kosovo, and that white house spokesmen knew they would attack and kill Serbs”…Go and see the German TV documentary “It started with a lie”.
Is that it…a TV film…would you like me to give you documentaries about the existence of aliens, I could even give you a reference that says that [insert ethnic group of your prejudice here] rule the world and should be destroyed. This is rubbish and TOTALLY untrue, TV documentaries aren’t proof, where are your court cases, official documents, etc.,…where is your actual proof. Where is the legal rulings…you are talking about a war crime here…do you believe EVERYTHING you see on TV
What is really fun is that you call me an idiot when you are showing yourself up to be worse. When you don’t understand how the UN works, that you live in some fantasy world where genocide is OK, or the fact that you don’t understand what is written.
I was going to launch into a rather colourful diatribe now, quite eloquent I was going to be… but you know what I’m not going to reduce myself to your level. You are making a fool of yourself, with every post you become sadder and more pathetic…look at what you are saying, innocent people are dying and you obfuscate, and try to divert attention, yo
Ivan3,
You did a masterful job,but one cannot polish a turd.
the full final para is as follows
I was going to launch into a rather colourful diatribe now, quite eloquent I was going to be… but you know what I’m not going to reduce myself to your level. You are making a fool of yourself, with every post you become sadder and more pathetic…look at what you are saying, innocent people are dying and you obfuscate, and try to divert attention, you support their killers…what type of person protects the killers of the innocent…ask yourself, is this REALLY what you want to do?
thanks Peter, it is just tragic that he ‘thinks’ like this
Bulls**ter
John Bull:
And the rest:
“Kevin Taylor DID allege that Stalker had committed a crime, and at that time he had been arrested for a crime and was awaiting trial when Stalker was suspended”
“You are so thick it is incredible You went to Wikipedia,”
Well it was good enough for you; see your previous post,
“Wikipedia actually says: “His temporary suspension from duty and removal from the inquiry in 1986, based on false allegations that Kevin Taylor, an acquaintance of his, was a professional criminal, caused considerable public outcry.” Why are you so excited about defending a lack of justice for people in Northern Ireland when you claim to be concerned about it in Russia?”
It caused considerable outcry because he was innocent… but he had to be suspended for the allegation Taylor made. You don’t deny that an allegation of crime was made. This allegation had to be investigated. Any police have to be pure, any allegation, however wrong has to be investigated. No one is above the law.
“They where…by the way the RUC being disbanded nearly a decade ago…and you are a NI expert”
You said “”When allegations are made against police you think they should not be suspended”
Yes, including the RUC.” http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/3116970980694454789/?a=15961#413690
Present tense
“I was never here to defend crimes in Russia. Only to point out the hypocrisy of the west, but you were too dense to see that.”
But strangely you never condemn the crimes of Russia, odd that. OK I’ll be perfectly clear, all crimes should be punished, crimes by individuals, crimes by military, politicians, organizations, and by the IRA and their loyalist opposites. There should be an open and fair light shone on all misdeeds wherever they are done, UK, NATO, Russia, Georgia, anywhere.
Do you agree with the same light of justice being shone on Russia’s crimes?
You call me thick based on the previous posts…that’s funny…and you are the joke.
“The FACT is you have NEVER condemned the genocide in Chechnya.”
You claimed I had said it was OK to kill hundreds of thousands of people. I have not condemned Drseden or Hiroshima on here, but that does not mean I think they were right. Provide a quote where I have said so or stop babbling.
“You never choose to call the acts committed by Russians acts of terror or the perpetrators terrorists”
Which ones? You chose not to call those who deliberately bombed civilians in a Belgrade TV station terrorists. How about the British forces that shot people in the back on Bloody Sunday. Terrorists to you?
“What Amnesty said, after Kenneth Barret was found GUILTY of the murder that there should be a study into the wider social and political factors of the murder”
No they asked for an independent inquiry, not a British state one. Keep Googling.
“The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, was formed in 1993”
Nice random info there, only I have constantly referred to “the Hague” meaning the entire organisation • the ICC.
“The US have agreed to the convention by the by. More than this since 12 Jan 1951 the Convention came into force this means that it does not matter if the US, or anyone else do not sign are AUTOMATICALLY bound by it, they have no protection,”
Wrong. Quoting Noam Chomsky: “What is interesting is that the US excused itself from the case [brought by Serbia to the world court] and the court accepted the excuse. Why? Because Yugoslavia had mentioned the genocide convention and the US did sign the genocide convention after forty years, but it ratified it with a reservation saying ‘inapplicable to the United States’” I suppose he won’t be good enough for you either, only being the most cited academic alive, but you’re not very bright are you? http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=LaszcGGaNT4&feature=related So all your time googling for the Geneva Convention was fruitless http://www.amazon.com/United-States-Genocide-Convention/dp/0822311097
“I am very well aware of the text. Prof Gray does not say it is an ILLEGAL action, she says that there should have been a more exact wording of the Resolution”
No, the document says “Gray has argued that,resolution 1244 was not a retrospective
acceptance of the legality of NATO action” Therefore it wasn’t legal. She also wrote this book to argue British / US wars against Iraq and Serbia were illegal.
http://book.ws/International-Law-Use-Force-Christine-D-Gray-Foundations-Public/details/0199239150 You are an idiot (I wouldn’t call you “sweet cheeks” or a “dick” though • not my language).
“It does not say they where killed on purpose or that it were an illegal act.”
Do you think it’s wrong? You asked the same of me and I agreed it would be wrong for Russia to do what NATO did. What say you?
“The resolution which authorized the action was supported by Russia, if it where not they would have vetoed it. If they vetoed it the operation would not have happened.”
I asked you for a source showing the Russians supported the bombing of Serbia. You didn’t provide one. And how could they have stopped the operation by vetoing it when the bombing of Serbia ended on 10th June 1999 and resolution 1244 is from 10th June 1999?
“They do not say it was illegal, [bombing from high altitude] or wrong, just ‘troubling’…you keep blathering about an ILEGAL act • a CRIME”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/781165.stm Only Amnesty then.
“TV documentaries aren’t proof, where are your court cases, official documents, etc.,…where is your actual proof.”
You’re an idiot. You regularly cite Wikipedia, where videos can be used as a source • it’s all about the content. I would be interested in your documentary on aliens if a White House spokesman was shown in it with prior knowledge that they were about to ethnically cleanse people. Here, the BBC article states “The Germans were letting refugees bring back weapons if they could either show a KLA membership card or if they were recognised.” And they went on to kill Serbs as the White House spokesmen knew would happen. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/371796.stm Any better than the Russians, or worse?
“It caused considerable outcry because he was innocent… but he had to be suspended for the allegation Taylor made. You don’t deny that an allegation of crime was made. This allegation had to be investigated.”
Provide proof of this • that Taylor made an allegation against Stalker, which is what you are saying.
“When allegations are made against police you think they should not be suspended”
Your question was intended to make a point about the John Stalker 20 years ago. If it is meant to be a general principle relating to past events then I was “including” the RUC as being subject to same general principle as you say Stalker was. If it was only relating to the present, then by your own logic it had no bearing on the John Stalker case at all, and your question was moot.
“all crimes should be punished, crimes by individuals, crimes by military, politicians, organizations, and by the IRA and their loyalist opposites. There should be an open and fair light shone on all misdeeds wherever they are done, UK, NATO, Russia, Georgia, anywhere.”
I agree, but where have I said different.
“’You are so thick it is incredible You went to Wikipedia,’
Well it was good enough for you; see your previous post”
No, what I actually said was “You are so thick it is incredible You went to Wikipedia, tried to read up on John Stalker and were unable to read properly,” which is true until you provide proof that Kevin Taylor made an allegation against Stalker.
Now stop fawning over each other, and provide this eloquent discourse you have been boasting about.
“Which ones? You chose not to call those who deliberately bombed civilians in a Belgrade TV station terrorists. How about the British forces that shot people in the back on Bloody Sunday. Terrorists to you?”
Not by any sane definition of terrorism.
part one
Twinkle-toes
“John Bull:
“You claimed I had said it was OK to kill hundreds of thousands of people.”….You have never condemned the deaths in Chechnya, you ‘choose’ not to. Not condemning an action is giving the actions your tacit support.
“I have not condemned Drseden or Hiroshima on here, but that does not mean I think they were right.”…..You have never mentioned Dresden or Hiroshima… like you always do when faced with having to criticize Russia you throw up examples that have nothing to do with Russia. So you condemn Dresden which was attacked for a couple of reasons, the most important being that the Russians demanded it was to stop it being German troops using its transport hub to move troops to the advancing Russian front…Hiroshima (I admit I greatly admire Japanese culture and found my visits to Hiroshima and Nagasaki very moving) shortened the war and saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of allied troops, and millions of Japanese civilians who were being armed, trained, and had decades of indoctrination to believe their Emperor was God and would have fought to the last…..these deaths where saved, which is a good thing…..Condemn them if you want….but condemn Russia as well
“You never choose to call the acts committed by Russians acts of terror or the perpetrators terrorists”…..Which ones?”…..See http://www.crimesofwar.org/chechnya-mag/chech-interview.html for an article by Russian Human Rights worker Oleg Orlov, a very good article. In part he says that in Chechnya…”there are the death squads and the men who kidnap civilians at night-time. The men who carry out kidnappings of civilians at night-time are organised groups from the Interior or Defence Ministries or from the FSB. It’s not a matter of a few undisciplined soldiers. …We know this because when we have found the remains of local people in mass burial sites, these are people who have been taken away from their homes, not people killed during fighting. They have been brought there at different times and from different towns and villages, but buried together in one place….These armed men, often masked, surround a house, they don’t show the villagers any ID, though according to the law they must show ID and have papers authorising a house search. But we all know that it is only Russian soldiers who travel around in armoured personnel carriers. It’s amazing • the authorities know who directed the zachistka, which federal forces carried it out, which precise military or police unit, but they say they can’t find the guilty parties. It’s clear they simply do not want to find them. ..But the practice of kidnapping people during the night and ‘disappearing’ them is on the rise. It’s not only our research that shows this • it has been confirmed by the Moscow-backed administration in Chechnya, headed by Akhmad Kadyrov. Last December officials of the Kadyrov administration, Chechen ministers and regional officials wrote to Putin complaining precisely about this matter and requesting the president to protect them from this violence….The increase in these night-time operations coincided with the first discussions on the referendum in early December. Nothing changed as a result of the letter • in fact, the opposite happened. These operations continued on a large scale during January and February. We’re talking about hundreds of cases. …In fact, most Russians are now against the war • and have reached this opinion without any help from Western politicians. The West could take advantage of this, and be extremely tough on Russia. This could force our president • who doesn’t need this war, who needed this war in order to rise to power • to start to really get his act together.
Human Rights Watch see http://hrw.org/english/docs/2000/03/01/russia11094.htm “The Russian forces have ignored their Geneva convention obligations to focus their attacks on combatants, and appear to take few safeguards to protect civilians: It is this carpet-bombing campaign which has been responsible for the vast majority of civilian deaths in the conflict in Chechnya….causing death tolls in the hundreds in the Central Market bombing in Grozny and in many smaller towns and villages….. The bombing campaign has turned many parts of Chechnya to a wasteland: even the most experienced war reporters I have spoken to told me they have never seen anything in their careers like the destruction of the capital Grozny. …Men especially face grave difficulties when attempting to flee areas of fighting: they are subjected to verbal taunting, extortion, theft, beatings, and arbitrary arrest. On several occasions, refugee convoys have come under intense bombardment by Russian forces, causing heavy casualties. For many Chechens, the constant bombardment was only the beginning of the horror. Once they came into contact with Russian forces, they faced even greater dangers. Human Rights Watch has now documented three large-scale massacres by Russian forces in Chechnya. In December, Russian troops killed seventeen civilians in the village of Alkhan-Yurt while going on a looting spree, burning many of the remaining homes and raping several women. We have documented at least fifty murders, mostly of older men and women, by Russian soldiers in the Staropromyslovski district of Grozny since Russian forces took control of that district: innocent civilians shot to death in their homes and their yards. In one case, three generations of the Zubayev family were shot to death in the yard of their home….On February 5… Russian forces went on a killing spree in the Aldi district of Grozny, shooting at least sixty-two and possibly many more civilians who were waiting in the street and their yards for soldiers to check their documents. These were entirely preventable deaths, not unavoidable casualties of war. They were acts of murder, plain and simple…. there is no evidence that the killing spree has stopped…. the Russian authorities have begun arresting large numbers of civilian men throughout Chechnya. These men, numbering well over a thousand, and some women, have been taken to undisclosed detention facilities…Ihave spoken to men who have been able to pay their way out of these detention facilities, and they have given me consistent testimony about constant beatings, severe torture, and even cases of rape of both men and women. One of the men suffered from a back injury after being hit with a heavy metal hammer; a second man had several broken ribs and suffered from kidney problems from the severe beatings. “…There are many more sources of information of Russian war crimes in Chechnya, see http://www.gfbv.it/3dossier/cecenia/cecen-en.html on mass murder of innocents in a market leaving 400 dead or wounded, 21/10/1999. What about the attack by the Russians of an aid convoy marketed with Red Cross insignia, 29/10/99? Or about the atrocity in the “Naurski Raion” area an eyewitness saw 80 men being shot on 28.10.1999. Or how about” Then hundreds of Chechens aged 14 and over were brutally tortured in “filtering camps” and executed. Mass graves such as that located in the notorious Camp PAP-1 in Grozny could not be excavated because the departing Russian armed forces had mined them when they left in 1996.” The Russians admit to war crimes, Lt. Gen. Vladimir Moltenskoi the Russian General in charge of Chechnya admitted to them http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E03EEDD173BF931A25754C0A9679C8B63. the Guardian, you now the paper you quote from when the criticize NATO, reports Russian war crimes in Chechnya http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/mar/05/russia.chechnya, see also http://www.amnesty.org/russia/chechnya.html, or perhaps you need photos of the atrocities, there is a photo exhibition about them, see http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2006/05/21/4693.shtml. You are the only person to deny the war crimes. You are sounding like a holocaust denier. Reflect on that
part two,
bull-boy
“You chose not to call those who deliberately bombed civilians in a Belgrade TV station terrorists. How about the British forces that shot people in the back on Bloody Sunday. Terrorists to you?”….Prove it was deliberate and then prove it was illegal, see my previous post. I’ll wait until the Bloody Sunday inquiry is over and the prosecutions to start before I give my view, if they were guilty of a crime I’ll call them terrorists.
“No they asked for an independent inquiry, not a British state one. “…He was convicted of the murder though… I’ve no problem with an independent inquiry.”
“The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, was formed in 1993″…Nice random info there, only I have constantly referred to “the Hague” meaning the entire organisation • the ICC.”….We where referring to the Trails against suspects in the former Yugoslavia… this is the UN tribunal that deals with it. You do not mention the ICC at all, only when caught either lying or being ignorant do you ‘Google’ it, when is that a pejorative term by the way, and change you story? There is no standing open court against genocide, genocide is thankfully rare, the UN has to form and sanction a new one each time, this is what they had to do in the case of Rwanda….you are talking bollocks again. Turkey can be brought to account for its actions at the European Court of Human Rights http://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR if it committed genocide the UN would act creating a court to try the accused.
“Wrong. Quoting Noam Chomsky: “What is interesting is that the US excused itself from the case [brought by Serbia to the world court] and the court accepted the excuse.”
The US was not accused of genocide, Serbia tried to say that their actions were against the remit of the law as they, like the US at the 1948 signing, had immunity against it. The case showed that they, the US, or indeed any other state has no such protection….why do you get-off on the idea that genocide is legal?? Noam Chomsky is a philosopher and linguist, he also says that there is no difference between working for a wage or slavery which would suggest that he can be wrong, he does call America the greatest country in the world (May 30, 2002 American Morning with Paula Zahn CNN) which seems to suggest the whole OK for the US to commit genocide is not true..he is not a lawyer. He is a member of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts in Department of Social Sciences, so he may not be totally impartial, see http://www.chomsky.info and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky .Your cited book is out of date as it does not deal with the universal nature of the genocide convention and how it applies to all including the US. Chomsky called the Situation in Kosovo “here has been a humanitarian catastrophe in Kosovo in the past year, overwhelmingly attributable to Yugoslav military forces. The main victims have been ethnic Albanian Kosovars, some 90 percent of the population of this Yugoslav territory. The standard estimate is two thousand deaths and hundreds of thousands of refugees.” Going on “The …goal was to prove the credibility of NATO, to stop ethnic cleansing that was going on inside of Kosovo” Tikkun, April 5, 1999. Where are you quotes?
“So all your time googling for the Geneva Convention was fruitless”…So reading the Geneva Convention is useless……dick the Geneva Convention applies to ALL states.
“the document says “Gray has argued that, resolution 1244 was not a retrospective
acceptance of the legality of NATO action”….She has not said it was illegal but that the wording of the Resolution of too wide-ranging….
“It does not say they where killed on purpose or that it were an illegal act.”….Do you think it’s wrong? You asked the same of me and I agreed it would be wrong for Russia to do what NATO did. What say you?”…All deaths are tragic, but there is a difference between accidents or willful murder. As I’ve said several times previously willful murder by any NATO troops would be murder, should be condemned and the perpetrators brought to justice…you never say the same about Russia though.
“I asked you for a source showing the Russians supported the bombing of Serbia. You didn’t provide one?”…Russia supported the Resolution which gave NATO actions legitimacy.
“They do not say it was illegal, [bombing from high altitude] or wrong, just ‘troubling’…you keep blathering about an ILEGAL act • a CRIME”….http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talki…oint/ 781165.stm Only Amnesty then.”
So you agree with Amnesty International? Then you agree with them that Russia is committing war crimes in Chechnya, you will then unreservedly condemn them and call for prosecutions. Amnesty says that NATO did not take all the precautions to minimize civilian deaths…it does not call them war crimes, or any other crimes. This is not a crime, it is a tragedy….is this the best you can do. Really?
“You’re an idiot. You regularly cite Wikipedia, where videos can be used as a source”….I cite Wikipedia because you do; I also supplement them with other sources, you dont.
“The Germans were letting refugees bring back weapons if they could either show a KLA membership card or if they were recognised.” And they went on to kill Serbs as the White House spokesmen knew would happen. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world…rope/ 371796.stm “……Full quote “So many refugees are returning home that Nato forces, Albanian policemen and even the Kosovo Liberation Army have been struggling to cope at the border….KLA members – unarmed and in civilian clothes – helped the peacekeepers….by spotting Albanians among the refugees and turning them back. The German troops said they were happy to have the rebels there. ..”They can recognize who’s from Kosovo and who’s from Albania. We can’t”…is that it? That unarmed indigenous population (disbanded as by resolution) helped stop Albanians illegally entering Kosovo.the article DOES not say ‘they went on to kill Serbs as the White House spokesmen knew would happen’ prove it or shut up.
“Provide proof of this • that Taylor made an allegation against Stalker, which is what you are saying”…..Since you use Wikipedia you can use that quote, or the BBC who said, “John Stalker, the deputy chief constable of Greater Manchester police has been cleared of misconduct. …Mr Stalker’s exoneration comes three months after he was suspended following allegations he was associating with criminals.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/22/newsid_2535000/2535029.stm
“If it is meant to be a general principle relating to past events then I was “including” the RUC as being subject to same general principle as you say Stalker was. If it was only relating to the present, then by your own logic it had no bearing on the John Stalker case at all, and your question was moot. “…..Stop digging…ex-RUC, a lot of those who would need investigating were retired as part of the disbanding of the RUC…you cannot suspend people who no longer work for you. Any policemen accused of a crime needs to be suspended, past, present, or future.
“all crimes should be punished”…..I agree, but where have I said different.”……Where have you called for Russian crimes to be investigated and the guilty punished??
Why don’t you stop lying and deal with the truth… one has t make allowances but your genocide denial is sickening…..what about the looting in Georgia, the murders in Georgia…condemn them
John Bull, war crime denier
Because you seem to be too stupid to understand even the most simple of things please read this little story, it is designed with pre-teen children in mind so you might have a chance of grasping it.
Suppose the UK decides at the political level, the media level, and at the social, to invade Belgium (please feel free to insert own choice of country here). This invasion being a totally illegal invasion, just simple invasion. The British then start to commit genocide, mass rape, looting, and torture, ethnic cleansing, taking over property and companies… the works.
Imagine the perpetrators are totally blasé about these atrocities, say with ITV running a very poplar ‘Murder Idol’ TV programme on prime time, with books and films called ‘Murdering the Belgie Animals’, etc.
This is the most extreme example of a crime against humanity I can imagine, it would break every law there is.
Britain would be condemned and there would be a clamour to punish the perpetrators whether they are politicians, soldiers, or the individuals. People would be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity — rightly so.
BUT
Just because Britain (or any other country) did such atrocities DOES NOT mean that Russia (or anyone else) can commit atrocities of their own. We are not children who can seek to excuse our misdeeds by saying “well Ann did it as well/did worse”.
That is the point we are saying whatever the actions of the past be whoever it does not excuse the crimes of Russia today…so you should stop trying to cloud the issue.
If you are going to use Dresden or Nagasaki to damn the west, you will also call the Russian genocides crimes, you know the 1,500,000 killed 1917, the 500,000 Central Asian Turks murdered, 600,000 Kurds, 128,000 Muslims140,000 Germans (WW1),7,000,000 murdered by Stalin in the be forced famine, and many many more…and that only takes us to 1932!!!If you use Dresden or Hiroshima (neither of which you can prove is illegal) to justify Russian Crimes, we can use the above Russian Crimes to justify ours!!!
The thing is though like the little fairy tale above illustrates you cannot…crime is a crime and there is no justification, do defence against condemning the actions and the people.
“Not condemning an action is giving the actions your tacit support”
Idiot. You cannot provide a quote from me.
“So you condemn Dresden which was attacked for a couple of reasons”
I haven’t condemned Dresden anywhere. Provide a quote where I did.
“You are the only person to deny the war crimes. You are sounding like a holocaust denier”
Provide a quote where I have done so or shut up.
“I’ll wait until the Bloody Sunday inquiry is over and the prosecutions to start before I give my view”
Well you’re fond of Amnesty and they have no faith in British inquiries as they said regarding the Finucane case. It’s kind of like saying I’ll wait until the Russians are found to have commited war crimes by a Russian inquiry before I make my mind up.
“We where referring to the Trails against suspects in the former Yugoslavia”
No “we” weren’t. I also referred to the Hague failing to prosecute US allies.
“The US was not accused of genocide, Serbia tried to say that their actions were against the remit of the law as they, like the US at the 1948 signing, had immunity against it. The case showed that they, the US, or indeed any other state has no such protection”
You want me to take the word of “Ivan3,” the internet troll, over Chomsky, the most cited academic alive because you don’t think much of him. No thanks. If you think he is wrong contact him and tell him. In fact he expands on the subject here: “I mean, take the one case where the US was indeed condemned for international terrorism and ordered to terminate the crime, namely the attack on Nicaragua, which went to the World Court. The World Court had to take a very narrow case, because the US had excluded itself from all international treaties. So the US cannot be brought to the World Court for major crimes, for example the supreme international crime, invasion, or violation of the UN Charter, or violation of the Genocide Convention, these are things the US is exempt from, because they exempted themselves from being subjected to international treaties in World Court proceedings.” http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:Q6pWhR5RYBYJ:www.chomsky.info/interviews/20041217.htm+serbia+United+states+world+court+genocide+exempt&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=26&gl=uk
“Your cited book is out of date as it does not deal with the universal nature of the genocide convention and how it applies to all including the US”
The book is precisely about the US exempting itself from genocide laws, which was my point.
“She [Christine Gray] has not said it was illegal but that the wording of the Resolution of too wide-ranging”
She wrote a book to argue it was illegal. You can’t take being wrong.
“willful murder by any NATO troops would be murder, should be condemned and the perpetrators brought to justice…you never say the same about Russia though.”
Of course I do, only I also include British soldiers in that. You want a trial by any other country than Russia before you agree to condemn or see the murderers brought to justice. Double standard there.
“Amnesty says that NATO did not take all the precautions to minimize civilian deaths”
The report clearly says Amnesty accused NATO of committing was crimes. So you do or don’t believe amnesty? You don’t believe them when they accuse NATO of war crimes, or when they have a mistrust for British inquiries, but you believe anything they say about Russia. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/781165.stm I have said it would be a war crime for Russia to do the same, but you won’t accept it is a war crime for NATO. Just as I accept it would be a war crime for Russian soldiers to shoot civilians in the back at close range, but you don’t accept the same for British soldiers in Northern Ireland.
“That unarmed indigenous population (disbanded as by resolution) helped stop Albanians illegally entering Kosovo”
The German TV documentary shows the White House Spokesman telling journalists what will happen to Serbs. So do you condemn NATO allowing armed KLA members to cross the border and commit violence or is it only Russians you condemn for doing the same in Georgia? http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=13541
“John Stalker, the deputy chief constable of Greater Manchester police has been cleared of misconduct. …Mr Stalker’s exoneration comes three months after he was suspended following allegations he was associating with criminals.”
You said Kevin Taylor was a criminal and that he had made an allegation against Stalker. Now prove it or shut up.
“When allegations are made against police you think they should not be suspended”
Again, if the above related to the 80s and John Stalker (which is why you made the point) then including RUC officers as part of the general principle was correct. If it only relates to the present, then it had no relevance to John Stalker.
“Why don’t you stop lying and deal with the truth… one has t make allowances but your genocide denial is sickening…..what about the looting in Georgia, the murders in Georgia…condemn them”
I do condemn them, which is why I said the Russians should pull out of Georgia at this point. I await your quote from me to prove I have denied genocide. Prove it or shut up.
“Just because Britain (or any other country) did such atrocities DOES NOT mean that Russia (or anyone else) can commit atrocities of their own. We are not children who can seek to excuse our misdeeds by saying “well Ann did it as well/did worse”. Ivan3 | 15.08.08 – 7:29 pm”
What a load of hot air. I have never argued that western war crimes excuse the war crimes of other countries – only that there is hypocrisy in the west. I don’t care a bit for Stalin who was every bit as bad as Hitler. If you claim I do then provide quotes from me where I have said so. Stop babbling and venting about things I don’t believe, but that you think I might believe.
War crime-denier
John Bull:
“Not condemning an action is giving the actions your tacit support”… Idiot. You cannot provide a quote from me”…..Where do you condemn them thicko
“I haven’t condemned Dresden anywhere. Provide a quote where I did.”…..”I have not condemned Drseden or Hiroshima on here, but that does not mean I think they were right.” http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/3116970980694454789/?dt=1218842641#413842……So do you think they where right or not?…more smokescreen!!!!! If you don’t condemn them why mention them, it would be irrelevant.
“You are the only person to deny the war crimes. You are sounding like a holocaust denier”
“[ME] “You never choose to call the acts committed by Russians acts of terror or the perpetrators terrorists”
Which ones?” http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/3116970980694454789/?dt=1218842641#413842
No condemnation, no agreement they existed….just denial. Nor do you admit the crimes or call for their punishment here, even when being supplied with mass evidence of their existence, and believe me there is much more evidence if you want it…
“I’ll wait until the Bloody Sunday inquiry is over and the prosecutions to start before I give my view”…Well you’re fond of Amnesty and they have no faith in British inquiries….”…..Amnesty has not said they criticize the Bloody Sunday Inquiry; no doubt they will give their view when it is over but never had cast doubt on it…you and your mind reading.
[Amnesty}”as they said regarding the Finucane case”….They have never doubted the guilt of the convicted murderer.
“It’s kind of like saying I’ll wait until the Russians are found to have commited war crimes by a Russian inquiry before I make my mind up.”……But you deny there are crimes, you’ve never said they are any and asked for proof. You are not calling, nay demanding, and independent investigation into Russian genocide though. So you deny they happened even though the Russians, and Amnesty who you must agree with was you’ve used them to support your ‘argument’, and the Russian General in charge admits they took place….denial denial..denial
“We where referring to the Trails against suspects in the former Yugoslavia”…”No “we” weren’t. I also referred to the Hague failing to prosecute US allies.”……No we weren’t we were talking about how The Hague does no punish Muslims for crimes in the former Yugoslavia…now allies, my how you squirm…which they do…you keep changing your argument when you are caught being ignorant or lying. As I’ve previously posted Turkey is being held to account for its actions in the ECHR, unless they committed genocide as this is the court that deals with them, or any other member, genocide is different, that is a UN matter, see previous.
[Me] “The US was not accused of genocide,”…. [Bull] You want me to take the word of “Ivan3,” the internet troll, over Chomsky”….Where does Chomsky accuse the US of genocide?
“the most cited academic alive because you don’t think much of him.”….No hard feelings I don’t believe a genocide-denier, especially one who has been caught lying. Chomsky is not a lawyer but has admitted pro-Serbian sympathies… By the by he is not here most cited academic alive. He is not the most cited academic alive, that would be Dr. Hermann Haus see http://isihighlycited.com/ still never let the facts in the way…..Chomsky is wrong, the rules have changed
“Your cited book is out of date as it does not deal with the universal nature of the genocide convention and how it applies to all including the US”…The book is precisely about the US exempting itself from genocide laws, which was my point.”……Out of date, the rules have changed
“She [Christine Gray] has not said it was illegal but that the wording of the Resolution of too wide-ranging”…She wrote a book to argue it was illegal. You can’t take being wrong.”…..Which book? Not “The Use of Force in International Law (Oxford University Press)” where she describes Kosovo intervention to be a response to the shocking lack of action against Cambodia which led to genocide, p. 34, or that NATO was using the biter experience of previous genocides in order to try to stop the Kosovo one, p.24. in the whole book, the only one she’s written about the use of force and Kosovo does she state that it was an illegal act • a war crime, she reflects that this proactive action may mark an evolution of Article 24 of the UN convention…but that’s it…no crime there…you keep saying she does, prove it….perhaps you can write to her telling her of her support ofgenocide??
“willful murder by any NATO troops would be murder, should be condemned and the perpetrators brought to justice…you never say the same about Russia though.”….Of course I do”…..No you don’t, where have you called for their prosecution?
“Amnesty says that NATO did not take all the precautions to minimize civilian deaths” “The report clearly says Amnesty accused NATO of committing was crimes.”…..No it doesn’t it says the MAY have been against the rules…this is different to saying it was a war crime… where does Amnesty (who you seem to agree with when they are not challenging Russia) say it was a war crime and the miscreants should be charged? They don’t so stop lying. RULES are not LAWS; break a rule then it is a breach of the rules; break a law then it is a war crime. Nor does it say that the rules where broken, only that they MAY have been = needing further investigation. They must have found them not breaches of the rules as in the near ten years since they have been no calls for prosecutions form Amnesty.
“The German TV documentary shows the White House Spokesman telling journalists what will happen to Serbs. So do you condemn NATO allowing armed KLA members to cross the border and commit violence or is it only Russians you condemn for doing the same in Georgia? http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_d…sp? NewsID=13541″…..Two things see my previous post about using past actions of others to justify your crimes, more than this, these Germans where on the Kosovo border pre-invasion with a mandate to stop innocent civilians being massacred by the Serbs by allowing them escape routes, more than this, as the article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/371796.stm) says,
“”Since there is no agreement yet [on demilitarising the KLA], we let them go through with their guns,” said Lieutenant Weigang.”
Because the UN resolution authorizing NATO force was not signed, and that that Resolution disarmed the KLA, it was against the German’s rules of engagement, and international law to do so….or do you think that such rules don’t matter, as long as they can be used to smear NATO????…You could read the BBC article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/371336.stm) ‘Serb ‘torture chamber’ found’…It is peculiar that you use the BBC, which you have accused of propaganda and war crimes to support your little fantasy…there you go
“John Stalker, the deputy chief constable of Greater Manchester police has been cleared of misconduct. …Mr Stalker’s exoneration comes three months after he was suspended following allegations he was associating with criminals.”…..You said Kevin Taylor was a criminal and that he had made an allegation against Stalker. Now prove it or shut up.”….You said prove there was an allegation, I did and it came from Taylor, he was at the time charged with a crime and awaiting trial, ANY allegation (outside Russia obviously) has to be investigated so you are trying to put up a smokescreen to hide the fact you’ve lost this argument…are you seriously saying the police should not be suspending when allegations are made against them???
“Again, if the above related to the 80s and John Stalker (which is why you made the point) then including RUC officers as part of the general principle was correct. If it only relates to the present, then it had no relevance to John Stalker.”….See my previous post as you are talking crap here.
“Why don’t you stop lying and deal with the truth… one has t make allowances but your genocide denial is sickening…..what about the looting in Georgia, the murders in Georgia…condemn them”….I do condemn them, which is why I said the Russians should pull out of Georgia at this point”…….”At this point”….so it is a crime, but they should be able to do it again? You don’t call for the perpetrators to be brought to justice though
“I await your quote from me to prove I have denied genocide. Prove it or shut up.”….You’ve never, up to and including your last post condemned Russian genocide, or called for those responsible to be punished…you just keep denying it…sad
Bully-boy
“John Bull:
“Just because Britain (or any other country) did such atrocities DOES NOT mean that Russia (or anyone else) can commit atrocities of their own. We are not children who can seek to excuse our misdeeds by saying “well Ann did it as well/did worse”.
“What a load of hot air. I have never argued that western war crimes excuse the war crimes of other countries – only that there is hypocrisy in the west. I don’t care a bit for Stalin who was every bit as bad as Hitler. If you claim I do then provide quotes from me where I have said so. Stop babbling and venting about things I don’t believe, but that you think I might believe.”
I’m sorry you did not like my story, went over your head no doubt!
This argument stated about the Russia’s illegal invasion of Georgia…you have constantly tried to smear and smudge the issue by saying that the west is just as bad, so it is OK for Russia to have invaded…you also say that since NATO invaded, in your view, Kosovo illegally, then it is OK for Russia to do so in Georgia.
All you do is protect Russia by the use of irrelevant facts….lets stick to the present shall we?
Let me summarise.
1. You can’t provide any quotes where I ask you to. Me supposedly supporting genocide or condemning Dresden, Kevin Taylor making accusations against John Stalker, or me supposedly denying war crimes.
2. You refuse to acknowledge that a book about the US being exempt from genocide laws is relevant to my point about the US being exempt from genocide laws (Muah ha ha). You want people to trust, Ivan3, the troll over those who have written on and studied the subject.
3. You accuse Noam Chomsky of a Pro Serbian bias, despite your own admission that he said the US was the greatest country in the world and the fact that his opinions on the US being exempt from genocide laws were also made in relation to Nicaragua.
4. You want British forces accused of colluding with the murder of civilians to be found at fault by inquiries or trials in the UK before you will think of them as having committed a crime • even though amnesty disputes, in the case of Finucance, that a fair inquiry or trial is possible by the British state.
5. You deny that someone who has written a book saying that the wars against Serbia and Iraq had no legal basis thinks they were legal, but that the wording wasn’t clear enough.
6. You deny Amnesty says NATO committed war crimes against Serbia. Despite an Amnesty report. “On the basis of available evidence, including NATO’s own statements and accounts of specific incidents, Amnesty International believes that — whatever their intentions — NATO forces did commit serious violations of the laws of war leading in a number of cases to the unlawful killings of civilians.” http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/EUR70/018/2000/en/dom-EUR700182000en.html
Genocide denier
John Bull:
“quotes where I ask you to. Me supposedly supporting genocide or condemning Dresden”…See above, you have Never condemned Russian acts of genocide ever.
“Kevin Taylor making accusations against John Stalker,” the fact that allegations were made you don’t deny, see the previous posts, see http://beautifuljapan.org/?p=250 http://www.centreforcinemastudies.com/articles/article_mcilroy_repression.pdf http://codshit.blogspot.com/2005/06/denouenent-of-deep-throat-saga.html. The fact that were made
“do me supposedly denying war crimes.”….You don’t admit Russian war crime even when there is proof
“3. You accuse Noam Chomsky of a Pro Serbian bias, despite your own admission that he said the US was the greatest country in the world and the fact that his opinions on the US being exempt from genocide laws were also made in relation to Nicaragua. “….Since the US is not except to genocide laws he is wrong, he is not a lawyer, he has links to Serbia, which is not hidden, your argument goes both ways….if he cannot be biased because he thinks the US is the greatest country, he cannot think it is protected from genocide allegations. How could any man of honor call such a country the best country in the world??
Glad to see you are stopping lying about Prof. Gray’s work…so you have no legal proof for your lie about the illegality of NATO’s action
“4. You want British forces accused of colluding with the murder of civilians to be found at fault by inquiries or trials in the UK before you will think of them as having committed a crime • even though amnesty disputes, in the case of Finucance, that a fair inquiry or trial is possible by the British state.”
All British forces, all British people, and Turks, German’s and all other European states (including Georgia) are subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights… this is an independent (non-EU, non-NATO) court which can and do launch trials against the members, up to and including the UK, this includes the recent case NA. v. the United Kingdom which found the UK guilty of violating the human rights of a terrorist subject. Cases concerning the UK and NI have been dealt with this independent, non-political court, Amnesty or any lawyer can bring a case to the European court, including the representatives of accused terrorists, or the victims of human rights abuses. You keep lying about Amnesty I see. If this independent court does not think there is a problem why should you.
“5. You deny that someone who has written a book saying that the wars against Serbia and Iraq had no legal basis thinks they were legal, but that the wording wasn’t clear enough.”
Oh I was wrong you are still lying about Prof.’s Gray’s book you know where she does not say it is illegal, the paper you gave does not say it was illegal, the book she wrote does not say it was illegal….so prove it or stop lying. Just hiding her name does not make it true.
“6. You deny Amnesty says NATO committed war crimes against Serbia……Amnesty International believes that — whatever their intentions — NATO forces did commit serious violations of the laws of war leading in a number of cases to the unlawful killings of civilians.” http://www.amnesty.org/en/ librar…00182000en.html”
‘whatever their intentions’ some deaths are accident, collateral, whatever, such things are not a crime…they are accidents. It says that NATO committed a single breach of the rules of law…this is the attack on the TV channel.
1) Media can in specific circumstances become a military target. The only case of this is when they encourage a war crime, specifically genocide. And Serbia does have a history recently of committing genocide, or attempting too at any rate. The report does not deal with this aspect at all. The reason for this is that the lessons of Nazi Germany were lost at the time, since the report was written we have had the use of media to encourage war crimes, genocide in Rwanda, see (as well as the previous citations) http://www.globalissues.org/article/405/media-propaganda-and-rwanda, http://hrw.org/backgrounder/africa/rwanda0406/, http://www.idrc.ca/openebooks/338-0/
2) They provide no proof that it was deliberate even though they had access to the NATO records and personnel.
3) Importantly, Amnesty is a campaign pro-active organization who brings cases where crimes have been committed by states. They have a very strong history of this…they have NOT done so in the time between the report was written in 2000 and now…do you think they have forgotten???? Or do they think that it is not a crime?
4) I see you are not following your own advice,” I’ll wait until the …. are found to have commited war crimes by a Russian inquiry before I make my mind up” http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/3116970980694454789/?a=41029#413911 ,but that only applies to Russia, even when the same Amnesty Int. prove that Russia has committed war crimes….strange that!!!
To recap: after all your spewing it comes down to this:
1) No legal experts believe the NATO action was illegal.
2) You have no legal experts that say that the US can commit genocide with full immunity, even when the UN, Red Cross, the US, etc, say they are and have been since 1951.
3) After all the crap about NATO’s war crimes it comes down to a single incident which the intent may make it a crime, not the many you smeared with. But that Amnesty, or ANYONE else (state, organization, or SERBIA) has not referred the incident to the relevant court to be investigated as a war crime, or any crime at all. Why is that???? Do you think that Serbia is so forgiving that they do not want to cause a fuss about a little war crime? Oh do they know that it is not a crime?
Not very much is it???? No proof, one report never followed up by anyone even those who wrote it. I have no problem with a case been brought but one hasn’t…not by Amnesty…or are they stooges of NATO?? If so why did the criticize NATO in the first case.
No calls for the Russians who committed war crimes, who have committed genocide to be prosecuted though, even when they where proved to have occurred by numerous independent groups, including Amnesty International which you are basing your whole argument on…..still denying.
What about the crimes in Georgia committed by Russia, you know the illegal invasion and all that? Still using a smokescreen I see
1. You can’t provide any quotes where I ask you to. Me supposedly supporting genocide or condemning Dresden, Kevin Taylor making accusations against John Stalker, or me supposedly denying war crimes.
None of the links you posted show what you want them to. Kevin Taylor made no allegation against Stalker, you idiot. You have provided no quotes from me either.
2 You refuse to acknowledge that a book about the US being exempt from genocide laws is relevant to my point about the US being exempt from genocide laws (Muah ha ha).
Lawrence J le Blanc is the expert. http://www.marquette.edu/polisci/LeBlanc.htm His book is here http://www.amazon.com/United-States-Genocide-Convention/dp/0822311097
3 You accuse Noam Chomsky of a Pro Serbian bias, despite your own admission that he said the US was the greatest country in the world and the fact that his opinions on the US being exempt from genocide laws were also made in relation to Nicaragua.
You are still an idiot. Chomsky says the US is the greatest country in the world because of its internal freedoms, which he says has no link to its external behaviour. You cannot argue with him, you muppet. You are a troll he is a world respected academic.
4 You want British forces accused of colluding with the murder of civilians to be found at fault by inquiries or trials in the UK before you will think of them as having committed a crime • even though amnesty disputes, in the case of Finucance, that a fair inquiry or trial is possible by the British state.
You are still applying a different standard to Russia which you find guilty of crimes with no trials.
5. You deny that someone who has written a book saying that the wars against Serbia and Iraq had no legal basis thinks they were legal, but that the wording wasn’t clear enough.
Christine Gray is cited in another academic paper as arguing “that resolution 1244 was not a retrospective acceptance of the legality of NATO action”. http://www.hanselawreview.org/pdf2/Vol1No2Art3.pdf.
So it’s you against Christine Gray, and you against Chomsky. You idiot.
6. You deny Amnesty says NATO committed war crimes against Serbia. Despite an Amnesty report. “On the basis of available evidence, including NATO’s own statements and accounts of specific incidents, Amnesty International believes that — whatever their intentions — NATO forces did commit serious violations of the laws of war leading in a number of cases to the unlawful killings of civilians.” http://www.amnesty.org/en/ librar…00182000en.html
Amnesty clearly states that they were war crimes, whatever the intention, but you now have little respect for what they say. Strange that you are now dithering, and shifting goalposts whenever you get the evidence you ask for – but… you are an idiot.
“To recap: after all your spewing it comes down to this:”
1. I have provided experts, including Gray. There are more say it had no legal basis including Professor Christine Chinkin of LSE, and others, but you can find them if you care.
2. I provided one above, who has written a book on the subject.
3. You are dense. Serbia brought a case to the international court, as Chomsky said, for war crimes. When it failed the court cited the genocide convention and said the US is exempt from it.
Bully-boy
John Bull:
“Me supposedly supporting genocide or condemning Dresden,”…..You have never condemned the genocide against the Chechen people carried out by Russia, if you have prove that you have….not condemning a war crime, especially genocide when shown evidence is to support it is an act of support. Inaction in the face of a crime against humanity is supporting the act.
Dresden see your previous drivel. Why mention it at if you didn’t condemn it read the previous posts. I notice you now say you don’t condemn it when you learned it was done t protect Russia…funny that, Japan is forgotten,
“Kevin Taylor making accusations against John Stalker”………Provided 2 separate website, the Wikipedia one (and you DO use Wikipedia to support your argument) that say he did. Since this is an independent site which is strongly monitored for inaccuracies, especially in contentious issues, and had a good reputation you prove that it is not true, secondly the Japanese blog, which uses Irish reports also say it. If you are saying these reference sites are wrong then prove they are. The allegation was made which is the key point here no matter how many times you try to lie and prattle the point is that all allegations of illegality against a police officer have to be investigated. If you think they should not your full of crap.
“2 You refuse to acknowledge that a book about the US being exempt from genocide laws is relevant to my point about the US being exempt from genocide laws (Muah ha ha)….Lawrence J le Blanc is the expert. http://www.marquette.edu/polisci…sci/ LeBlanc.htm His book is here http://www.amazon.com/United-Sta…n/dp/ 0822311097″
Amazing you can lie about expert’s views, the book is, using the Amazon blurb ‘In this definitive study, Lawrence J. LeBlanc examines the nearly forty-year struggle over ratification of the Genocide Convention by the United States. LeBlanc’s analysis of the history of the convention and the issues and problems surrounding its ratification sheds important light on the process of treaty ratification in the United States and on the role of American public opinion and political culture in international human rights legislation…Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948’ that would mean that the genocide convention WAS ratified in the US before 1988….And you call me thick!!! It is ratified by the USA. It is ILEGAL for the USA to commit genocide…even your own citation proves it.
“Chomsky says the US is the greatest country in the world because of its internal freedoms”……..Not to commit genocide, not a legal expert.
“You are a troll he is a world respected academic.”….How do you know??
You are still applying a different standard to Russia which you find guilty of crimes with no trials.”……that is a LIE, I note Amnesty carries no weight when criticizing Russia
“Christine Gray is cited in another academic paper as arguing “that resolution 1244 was not a retrospective acceptance of the legality of NATO action”. http://www.hanselawreview.org/ pd…Vol1No2Art3.pdf.So it’s you against Christine Gray, and you against Chomsky. You idiot.”
It is a lie to suggest Prof. Gray called the NATO action illegal…I note the citation you gave is not a book by the good Prof., you know like you said contained writing of the act as an illegal one….another LIE from you. The article, not written by the Prof., cites her work she does NOT say it was illegal but states that such interventions are acceptable for humanitarian aims, these include alleviating humanitarian distress, (this includes ethnic cleansing, mass murder, and genocide) and she states that any use of force should be done by collective bodies’ not individual nations…like NATO. She nowhere says it was an illegal act or that the UN Resolution was wrong…. So you LIE yet again
“Amnesty clearly states that they were war crimes, whatever the intention, but you now have little respect for what they say. Strange that you are now dithering, and shifting goalposts whenever you get the evidence you ask for – but… you are an idiot.”
Not dithering — fact. An accident is not a crime by definition • it is an ACCEDENT. Amnesty singled out on single action, not involving cluster bombs, or flying too high like you smeared previously. As I’ve said Amnesty has not pursued this matter in the courts when they always actively pursuer states, especially democratic Western ones with an independent court system, and international court system in the case of Europe.
“To recap: after all your spewing it comes down to this:”….”I have provided experts, including Gray. There are more say it had no legal basis including Professor Christine Chinkin of LSE, and others, but you can find them if you care. ”
That is a blatant LIE you have provided no legal experts that actually support your case at all. The only citations you have given are from people who support the UN/NATO action….
Prof Chinkin, LSE is one you’ve never mentioned before… she’s an expert, in gender and the law, her only work on the operation concludes that it was a legal operation. I take it you cannot find any legal experts to support your smear and are giving up…very wise.
“2. I provided one above, who has written a book on the subject.”….book supports the action.
” You are dense. Serbia brought a case to the international court, as Chomsky said, for war crimes. When it failed the court cited the genocide convention and said the US is exempt from it.”
That is a LIE SERBIA never brought a case against NATO in the ECHR, which is the court that deals with these issues in Europe, neither has Amnesty, neither have the legal advisors acting for the TV station, or the people killed, even though a ruling form the ECHR would give them compensation for their loss as well as legal sanctions against the perpetrators of any crime.
To recap…you LIE and LIE again…you have never condemned Russian atrocities…I think we know about where you are coming from now.
Bully,
Since you are so keen on sources where are your sources that prove that MI5 murdered people in London during the cold war using poison dart????? Come on prove it, since you were using this action as a way to excuse Russian murder in London it is rather important, references and proof please, or is it another of your little LIES???
1. I haven’t condemned Dresden or many other atrocities, but that does not mean I wouldn’t. Your argument is a fallacy, and a gutter argument • condemn racism or you are a racist type nonsense.
You are unable to fathom that no allegation was made against Stalker. The police made an allegation against Taylor. That is it. The British state wanted to tarnish Stalker because he was getting to the heart of British state murder in Northern Ireland. Hence they created a false case against Taylor. Admit to being wrong.
2. You are a clown. Lawrence J le Blanc is an expert, but you are not. Both him and Chomsky say it was 40 years before the US ratified. And they did so with reservations which excepted the US from the law. You are trying to argue grass is blue.
3. Professor Gray states that there was no legal basis for the war – that makes it illegal. That is why you refuse to believe academics or academic citations • because they contradict you. Other Professors of Law who believed the war was illegal are Professor Ian Brownlie, and Professor Raju Thomas, but since you argue grass is blue, Google them yourself.
4 Serbia brought a case against NATO in the world court. Again it is Ivan3 the troll against Chomsky, and Chomsky is right. You are just ignorant.
5. “An accident is not a crime by definition • it is an ACCEDENT.”
Wrong. Amnesty says war crimes were committed.
It is therefore, Ivan3 the troll against Amnesty, Professor Gray, Professor Chomsky and professor LeBlanc.
You promised eloquence (you conceited muppet), but you’ve turned into a clown. I knew you would.
part 1
Dear Bully, I hope you are well,
“John Bull:
“1. Your argument is a fallacy, and a gutter argument • condemn racism or you are a racist type nonsense. “….Faced with evidence, some from Amnesty International of a war crime and then repeatedly to refuse to condemn the CRIME shows tacit support no matter how much you squirm…if a person was faced with evidence of a racist attack and not call it a racist attack, then that person is racist.
“You are unable to fathom that no allegation was made against Stalker. The police made an allegation against Taylor”….. Admit to being wrong.”….you are wrong, there was an allegation, every site, including the BBC one I supplied all say there as an allegation against Stalker…that is a fact no one disputes, even Stalker in his book say so. An allegation was made…the fact that there was an allegation means it has to be investigated, it was and John Stalker was proved innocent. I was right. I’ve provided sources for this. Now regarding Wikipedia two things:…1) You use it to support your argument so you must agree it is accurate. 2) The leading Journal of Science in the world, ‘Nature’, conducted an in-depth study of Wikipedia and compared it to other well established sources of reference. This impartial study found that Wikipedia was MORE accurate than these other sources of record (www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html. therefore the onus is on you to prove it is wrong in this matter. 3) prove your deranged contention that MI5 murdered people in London using Poison darts, admit YOU were wrong
“Blanc is an expert,”…. “Both him and Chomsky say it was 40 years before the US ratified. And they did so with reservations which excepted the US from the law. You are trying to argue grass is blue.”…What about bluegrass But you now say that the treaty WAS ratified, a change for you. The thing about choosing books from the title and not reading them, and you’ve been caught doing this before, is that you make a fool of yourself, case in point, do you REALY believe that an expert who wrote the definitive book on the subject, did not know the following pertinent points.,
‘The UNITED NATIONS TEXT of CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND
PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE’ Article III. The following acts shall be punishable:……a. Genocide; b. Conspiracy to commit genocide; c. Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; d. Attempt to commit genocide; e. Complicity in genocide.” Article VI, ‘Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article III shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction.” Article VII … The Contracting Parties pledge themselves in such cases to grant extradition in accordance with their laws and treaties in force.’ There is enclosed a list of countries who have ratified this legally binding convention, of interest to us here is the following, ‘United States of America, signature 11 Dec 1948, ratification 25 Nov 1988.’ , see http://www.serendipity.li/more/con_geno.html , see also http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/treaty1gen.htm, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/ratification/1.htm, http://schiff.house.gov/HoR/CA29/Legislative+Issues/In+His+Own+Words+-+Text/2003/11-04-03+Commemorating+the+15th+Anniversary+of+the+Enactment+of+the+Genocide+Convention+Implementati.htm Prof. LeBlanc is the expert, but what does ‘your’ expert say about the US’s reservations to the parts of the genocide that go against the US constitution, he says this,….‘other parties would also find it difficult to build a case for objecting to the US understanding regarding extradition, or to its assertion of jurisdiction for its own courts to try persons who commit genocide on the basis of either the nationality or territorial principles,…For this reason, it could hardly be interpreted as violative of the object and purpose of the convention’ The United States and the Genocide Convention, 1991, p.240
So your expert is saying that the US reservations, based on its constitution are not against the convention, that they do NOT VIOLATE the convention, more than that, to have any reservation to the treaty explicit agreement of EVERY other member of the convention, every other country in the world has to agree with the reservation (including the USSR, as was) (Report of the Committee of Experts for the Progressive Codification of International Law, 8 LNOJ, pp880-1 (1927), without such agreement the country seeking a reservation must accept the whole treaty, or not sign. Specifically regarding the Genocide convention case the International Court of Justice, (ICJ Reports, 1951, p.15;18 ILR, p. 364), stated that no party even if their reservations have been agreed by all other member states can join the convention if these reservations weaken the convention in any way (i.e. by not prosecuting the perpetrators of genocide, or extraditing alleged perpetrators to by tried by a UN sanctioned court), more than this, if the convention is broken, that is if the suspect in NOT extradited to the appropriate court, including the UN designed one, the signee is in breach of the UN convention and their membership to this convention is automatically void. see also International Law (5th ed.), pp 966-982; 147-151 by Prof Malcolm Shaw, QC., more than that, there is a legal presumption that, ‘Congress will not legislate contrary to the international obligations of the state’ ‘The Role of international Law as a Canon of Domestic Statuary Construction’, 43, Vanderbilt Law Review, 1990, p.1103, & ‘The Charming Betsy Canon and the Separation of Powers’, 86 Georgia Law (coincidence) Journal, 1988, p. 479. This means that the US is bound legally by its international treaties, including all the UN ones, specifically genocide in this case. Now, there is not ONE case were the US has failed to act on its obligations to extradite alleged genocide perpetrators when the UN asks them to be tried by an international court…this is FACT
So to recap, the US is bound by the Genocide Convention even though you stated they weren’t; that it is a crime punishable in the US, the convention has been expanded to allow non-Americans to be tried for genocide as well as Americans; in accordance to the US Constitution, Congress is legally bound to agree to any person accused of genocide to be extradited to stand trial at a UN Human Rights court; but if they didn’t the US would automatically be expelled from the convention by the International Court of Justice….in what way does that make genocide • a CRIME in US and international law- legal in the US????? Poltroon!
part 2
“Professor Gray states that there was no legal basis for the war – that makes it illegal.”…..No she doesn’t, indeed she explicitly states that the intervention in Kosovo was both legal and justified because of its humanitarian need, see previous post or her work and ‘Use of Force’, p31.,, she has even called such actions legal humanitarian interventions ‘Use of Force’, 24., and further that such interventions which are there to stop war crimes of to save large numbers of lives are legally justified. More than this there was no condemnation of NATO’s actions in Kosovo, see, Shaw, p. 1047, he goes on ‘the doctrine of humanitarian intervention in a crisis situation [talking about NATO’s action in Kosovo] was invoked and not condemned by the UN’…Since you have been caught lying repeatedly please let me know the source, and the page number, we don’t want you to misrepresent their views like have so many times before, by the by I loved your use of Prof Chinkin’s work, even though the second part of it describes the efforts NATO went to ensure their actions were legal. That was funny.
“Wrong. Amnesty says war crimes were committed.”…..Says one was; a single case not more than one. Amnesty has not taken the case to court, no one else has taken the case to court, in the ECHR, or any EU national court as all EU states, including the UK have the Human Rights act enshrined in their law, in the UK’s case cases of war crimes alleged to have taken place in Iraq have been tried in the UK, with legal aid paying millions to the legal teams of the victims to gain justice, this in terms of imprisonment of the convicted and financial compensation. No case pertaining to Kosovo has ever been brought before a court, even with all the experts, and all the radical lawyers who would make millions from legal aid to do. That is because they are not illegal. You don’t seem to support Amnesty when they call the MANY war crimes of the Russians, WAR CRIMES….odd.
It is like witnessing the slow, mental breakdown of an ignorant fascist dealing with you over these last posts. Still what can one expect from the type of person who will so any thing to not condemn Russian war crimes, who denies their existence….that is not funny.
Are you ready for more then, Troll?
1. “if a person was faced with evidence of a racist attack and not call it a racist attack, then that person is racist.”
Which is different to condemning it.
“the fact that there was an allegation means it has to be investigated, it was and John Stalker was proved innocent.”
You called Taylor a criminal and said he had made an allegation against Stalker – that was WRONG. Wikipedia does not say that. I have not yet found a source for the MI5 killing, but you actually gave a source that contradicted you. My assertion is not proven wrong, but you actually proved your assertion wrong by your inability to read the text and find out about the case • you troll.
2. Wrong. You quoted selectively from Le Blanc’s book. He actually states “Helms, Hatch and a few other outspoken critics of the convention in the senate were left with no practical alternative but to work for ratification under conditions that would reduce the convention to nothing more than a symbol of opposition to genocide.”
The book deals extensively with the reservation to article IX, which means the international court has no jurisdiction to try the US. That’s exactly Chomsky’s point. US ratification is a symbol of opposition, but the US is not subject to the laws. Incidentally I notice you have stopped disputing that Serbia brought a case against NATO countries including the US. See here “In the cases Yugoslavia v. Spain and Yugoslavia v. United States of America, the Court, having found that it manifestly lacked jurisdiction, ordered that those cases be removed from the List.” http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?case=109&p1=3&p2=1&p3=6&pr=468&search=%22am%E9rique%22
It is clear from Chomsky’s interview, and the world court decision that due to the reservations the US cannot be charged with genocide • the court has no jurisdiction. Again that is the whole purpose of Le Blanc’s book. He wouldn’t have had a reason to write it if that was not the case.
3. Your argument was on the basis of 1244 being a retrospective justification. Now you’ve found that 1244 is a non-starter since Gray and others have dismissed it as a legal basis you have moved on to humanitarian intervention. Gray has said that 1244 was not a legal basis. She, among others, gave evidence to a commons committee and they did not find that 1244 justified the use of force.
Whether humanitarian reasons justify the use of force is irrelevant because they can also be applied to South Ossetia as well, and you raised 1244 as a basis for your argument that NATO action was legal while Russia’s action was illegal. Now you go down the humanitarian road you have no case against Russia in South Ossetia. You’ve gone and forgot your original argument, and your reason for raising 1244 in the first place, but then you’re an idiot.
4. The Amnesty document mentions at least two war crimes. Read it again. By your logic if the Amnesty cases against cited against Russia never get to court then the crimes are not illegal. As with collusion in Northern Ireland, it’s simply a double standard. One system for finding the west guilty, but a different system for Russia. You’re still a muppet, but keep trying.
Hello fascist,
The Wikipedia site does say that Taylor was alleged to have made allegations against Stalker, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stalker, it also contained following reference which contained the following discussion of the case in Parliament. ‘The reasons put forward for Mr. Stalker being taken off the inquiry essentially related to four matters. One was that a personal associate of his was under investigation for fraud. I must make it clear that even to this day that individual has not been charged with any criminal offence. It was suggested that Mr. Stalker associated with the same individual, and possibly other known criminals and that there was photographic evidence of people in the same room. It was suggested that, while he was on holiday with Kevin Taylor, the yacht on which they were sailing was under observation by the American authorities. The implication was that they were involved in drugs or some other criminal activity….It was also suggested that Kevin Taylor, through his solicitor, had threatened that if he was charged with offences he would, I think it was said, blow Stalker and his associates out.’ Part of a question to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg) by Mr. Tony Lloyd MP , Hog went on ‘Allegations were made which, prima facie, were of a kind that needed investigation—and that happened in accordance with the ordinary rules and regulations.’ This ref seems new as I don’t remember it at all. I could never find any detail of the false allegations myself so thanks to the experts who found it and provided the citation; the second Stalker book is also new to me. Perhaps our row has piqued someone’s interest? As I’ve rapidly said, all these allegations were false. So the Wikipedia article is vindicated by another, independent, source.
“John Bull:
“I have not yet found a source for the MI5 killing, but you actually gave a source that contradicted you. My assertion is not proven wrong” it doesn’t it totally supports it, indeed the new version provides supporting evidence to the allegation! one of the strengths of the wiki idea is that things are checked and improved….all your legal sources where false, you have…you lied about what their views were and constantly used sources to support your ‘argument’ that where false, that were lies…you’ve tried to give credence to your ravings by using lies, you’ve provided references to experts who fail to support your point, or mention it at all. You are a liar who got confused the Russian murder….. You are just far too shallow and stupid to admit that you made a mistake, and be an adult….you just continue lying you are making up a case to justify the murder by Russia of a UK citizen in London….prove it or withdraw.
part 2
“2. ….”‘the crime of genocide is a crime against domestic law of the parties, which undertake an international obligation to make it a crime in their own legal system’ LeBlanc p.120, Specifically, US law against Genocide, which you say they don’t have U.S. Code; Chapter 50A; Section § 1091. Genocide (b) Punishment for Basic Offense. – The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) is – (1) in the case of an offense under subsection (a) (1), where death results, by death or imprisonment for life and a fine of not more than $1,000,000, or both; and (2) a fine of not more than $1,000,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both, in any other case. (c) Incitement Offense. – Whoever in a circumstance described in subsection (d) directly and publicly incites another to violate subsection (a) shall be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. (d) Required Circumstance for Offenses. – The circumstance referred to in subsections (a) and (c) is that (1) the offense is committed within the United States; or (2) the alleged offender is a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101). http://www.preventgenocide.org/law/domestic/uscode.htm2
You said it was legal for the US to commit genocide…that is a lie, indeed, the punishment for the crime is more severe than under the UN, On the nature of treaties under US constitutional law, See previous post about the US Constitution and how the Congress cannot fail to vote to extradite if asked too by the President.
Le Blanc makes the point that the ratification of the convention is the important thing as any Congressional amendments are not binding on the US president, they can scrap them at his/her discretion. One the convention was ratified, p241. once the convention is ratified it is out of Congress’s hands completely As US Senator, Caden said in a statement to the house Senate Committee on the Judiciary, in 2007, referring to the UN genocide convention “our treaty obligations are explicitly stated in the Constitution, once a treaty has been ratified by two-thirds of the Senate as required under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. Article VI provides that “[t]his Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land…” http://www.iccnow.org/documents/Genocide_and_the_Rule_of_Law,_Cardin.pdf’, the US Supreme court, the highest Court in the US, which are the experts in the workings of the US Constitution, has ruled, in their legally binding ruling, “international treaties under the Constitution were recognized as the ‘supreme law of the land’, Shaw, p. 115. Once the international treaty is ratified the international treaty rules • the congressional add-ons don’t effect the international treaty at all. This means that the US is bound by its international treaties, and that no Senate, or Congressional amendments matter… once it has been ratified. See previous post about how the US, or any other State who is a member of the convention HAS to abide by the full convention that includes extradition. .if the US or anyone else failed to extradite would be expelled them from the convention automatically…that is the truth, and nothing you can do can change it. It is illegal under US law to commit genocide, which you denied, more than this, as I’ve provided evidence for, it is a legal requirement that the Congress would have to approve extradition to a UN court if the UN requests this…note the leading law papers, where published after the book was written and law evolves. Any rider conditions attached by Congress have no power over the convention as they are not part of the UN convention. Take your time and read the current studies of the US constitutional dynamic….because you are wrong, unlike Prof. Le Blanc you should acquaint yourself to the current state of play. But let’s look at the reality of international requests for suspects; some requested by UN backed courts, wanted for genocide. .the reality. The US has a proven record of extraditing people accused of genocide to face trial abroad, even when they are US citizens, i.e., Jorge Eduardo Acosta Aubone, Navy Captain, formerly a senior officer at the Naval Mechanics School. He escaped Argentina in mid-1980s before the trials against top junta leaders began. He was found hiding in California in 1987 and extradited to face trial.….John Ivan Demjanjuk, extradited to Israel from the United States in February 1986. His sentence was overturned by the Israel Supreme Court on July 29, 1993 on the grounds of reasonable doubt. He returned to Ohio where his U.S citizenship was reinstated in February 1998. In 1985, a United States court authorized the extradition of a person alleged to have committed acts in Germany and other countries which amounted to genocide and other crimes against humanity to Israel. .Aleksandras Lileikis, 92, A US Federal District Court in Boston found that Aleksandras Lileikis, 88, of Norwood, Mass., had been chief of the Nazi-sponsored Lithuanian Security Police (Saugumas) in Vilnius and had played a prime role in the destruction of the Jewish community there by handing Lileikis denaturalized on May 24, 1996…Kazys Gimzauskas, lived in the US from 1956 to 1994, a retired machinist who once lived in St. Petersburg, Florida, in June 1996, after he had returned to Lithuania, he was stripped of his US citizenship. In February 2001 a Lithuanian court found Gimzauskas guilty of collaborating with the Nazis in genocide during World War Two. Carl Albrecht Oberg (1897 – 1965), Hoherer SS – und Polizeifuhrer (Higher SS and Police Leader) responsible for the “Final Solution” in France. On October 10, 1946, he was extradited by the US to France, and on October 9, 1954, was again sentenced to death.. In 1965, he was pardoned by President Charles de Gaulle and repatriated to Germany, where he died the same year. Elizaphan Ntakirutimana year old retired Seventh-day Adventist pastor and former President of the Seventh Day Adventist Church in Rwanda, was arrested on September 29, 1996 by FBI agents outside Laredo, Texas on Interstate 80 driving towards Mexico. The ICTR indictment alleges that after April 6, 1994 Ntakirutimana encouraged fearful Tutsis to take refuge at the Mugonero Church Complex. With the help of his defense attorney, fomrer US Attorney General Ramsey Clark, Ntakirutimana appealed his extradition to the US Supreme Court, which did not accept the case. He was transferred to the ICTR in Arusha, Tanzania in March 2000. = Extradited to the UN genocide Court. On January 9, 2001 the United States is offered rewards of up to $5 million for information about 13 fugitive Rwandans who have been indicted by an international tribunal THE UN TRIBUNAL for their alleged roles in the Rwandan genocide of 1994. The rewards are for information leading to the transfer of any of the fugitives to the International Criminal Court for Rwanda. The fugitives include former planning minister Augustin Ngirabatware, former minister of youth and sports Callixte Nzabonimana, Commandant Protais Mpiranya and Captain Cedeslas Kabera. Three others were mayors: Aloys Ndimbati in Gisovu, Ladislas Ntaganzwa in Nyakizu and Charles Sikubwabo in Gishyita. Two were military officers: Lt. Commandant Idelphonse Hategekimana and Capt. Idelphonse Nizeyimana, according to a State Department list. Two indictees — Yusufu John Munyakazi and a Mr. Ryandikayo — were members of the Interahamwe, the Hutu militia. The others are businessman Felicien Kabuga [see Kenya above] and Mubuga councilor Vincent Rutaganira. See http://preventgenocide.org/punish/extradition/index.htm. All these people, whether they or US citizens are not, were freely extradited to the appropriate court, to the UN court when need be.
None were refused extradition; none were blocked by the US Congress….you see when faced with reality the reality is that the US fully complies with their UN Genocide Convention commitments, even for US Citizens. There has not been a single case where extradition, even to a UN court was refused…and they are moving to strengthen this provision. So you are wrong •genocide is a crime in the US, and America does extradite its own citizens to face justice in international courts.
part 3
“3. ……………”That is a lie, as we’ve dealt with previously…no matter how much you lie, or stomp you little feet, it was not an illegal act…experts prove that it was an action approved not condemned by the UN, and its members, Shaw, p. 107, previous post. No court has ruled it illegal, or that it was a crime…it is really simple fascist-baby; The UN resolution recognises the justice…as I’ve said previously….As for Russia’s illegal invasion of Georgia, you known the one you are trying to justify using NATO/Kosovo (although you said you wouldn’t: how you twist and turn) look at the previous quote “the doctrine of humanitarian intervention in a crisis situation [talking about NATO’s action in Kosovo] was invoked and not condemned by the UN’…Russia has been condemned by the West, Japan, and the UN there is no case that it is seem as a humanitarian intervention, especially with the looting and invasion/occupation of uncontested Georgian cities. It is illegal
“4. The Amnesty document mentions at least two war crimes”….You’re wrong it cites one case it deems to have been a proved war crime….if they think they are I would welcome the perpetrators being brought to trial
“if the Amnesty cases against cited against Russia never get to court then the crimes are not illegal.”…You are really sickeningly stupid aren’t you? In the West there is a free and open court system, Amnesty, victims, lawyers, or other states can and do bring cases to court for human rights abuses, see the previous posts, if you cannot understand them get help as you are obviously a moron……..in Russia they cannot, gain justice because of the way the system is rigged to deny the victims justice, the murdered journalists get no justice and the state protects the guilty. But that’s not the point…your condemnation is
You are really a vacuous little creep aren’t you? You think that not condemning an action when it is a heinous crime is some kind of protection. I’ve repeatedly said that any war crimes committed by NATO, UK, whoever, should be brought to justice…see also the previous post about Iraqi war crimes cases. You don’t call for the same for your precious Russia though, you don’t say that any allegations should be investigated to ascertain their truth, or that an independent inquiry should be held into them, like you do for the UK
You are a weak imbecilic fascist. And a coward. if you have any strength of conviction you would stand up for what you believe, you could say ‘yes these are atrocities and the perpetrators should be brought to justice’, you could even go on and try to justify the wider picture…’but they are fighting in a good cause’. Or you could deny that they are true…a western put-up job say, you could even say the murder of the journalists was justified….But you don’t, you just cower like a smacked mongrel dog, trembling behind the chair not committing to anything…what a weak, pathetic piece of scum you really are. The fact is that actions, and inactions, speak far louder than words…with you it screams. Fascist, narrow minded bigoted, genocide-denier.
1. “This ref seems new as I don’t remember it at all. I could never find any detail of the false allegations myself so thanks to the experts who found it and provided the citation” and “Perhaps our row has piqued someone’s interest?”
No what happened was the row caused you to edit John Stalker’s wikipedia page, which you have done dishonestly. Only AN IDIOT would edit the Wikipedia page to say Kevin Taylor made allegations, when the source you cite doesn’t say so. The source says “It was also suggested that Kevin Taylor, through his solicitor, had threatened that if he was charged with offences he would, I think it was said, blow Stalker and his associates out.” So, Taylor had not made any allegation against Stalker. The “expert” who edited Wikipeda this morning at 6:10am, has only ever made 2 edits to Wikipedia • both on the John Stalker article. How can you be so desperate?
2. “You are just far too shallow and stupid to admit that you made a mistake, and be an adult….you just continue lying you are making up a case to justify the murder by Russia of a UK citizen in London.”
No, I actually said the murder of a British subject by the intelligence services. Because I have not found a source that does not mean it was wrong. At least I would not edit Wikipedia dishonestly • now that is shallow and stupid.
2. “So you are wrong •genocide is a crime in the US, and America does extradite its own citizens to face justice in international courts”
Extradition is nothing to do with the reservation to article Article IX. The issue is the World Court having no jurisdiction over the US because of its reservation to the article. That’s why Le Blanc says “Helms, Hatch and a few other outspoken critics of the convention in the senate were left with no practical alternative but to work for ratification under conditions that would reduce the convention to nothing more than a symbol of opposition to genocide.” That’s all it is – a “symbol of opposition” which is why even the opponents of ratification went along with it. You can’t argue with Le Blanc, Chomsky, and the world court decision. The US is not bound by the convention so stop babbling.
3. You lost your argument on 1244 because every expert cited said 1244 was not a legal basis. So you move on to humanitarian justification, but the problem for you is Russian troops already had a mandate to be in South Ossetia. They could not have stopped the shelling of civilians without crossing into Georgia, just as the Americans seem to like doing in Pakistan. So what exactly did the UN say when they condemned Russia then?
4. “In Russia they cannot, gain justice because of the way the system is rigged to deny the victims justice”
The same with the UK, as the European Court has found. Again, it’s your double standard. Russia doesn’t investigate – no problem. UK doesn’t investigate or fits officers up to take them off the case, no problem • a quick and dishonest edit of Wikipedia solves that one.
Genocide-denier
John Bull:
“No what happened was the row caused you to edit John Stalker’s wikipedia page, which “you have done dishonestly. …. the source you cite doesn’t say so. The source says “It was also suggested that Kevin Taylor, through his solicitor, had threatened that if he was charged with offences he would, I think it was said, blow Stalker and his associates out.”
Oh I see I did did I, not some lucky reader of this row who had information I laced and decided to spread it? Prove it… oh I forgot, you are mind-reader who does not need proof. I mean we all believe you don’t we (no). Secondly the threat was alleged to have been made by Taylor through his solicitor….that is fuckwit, that Taylor was alleged to have threatened Stalker….this from a source I never knew, if I had known I would have used it previously. Since I did not read your previous spew until 11 today I could not have changed it, the fact remains that these false allegations did include Taylor…… Or perhaps it is all a conspiracy by THEM to get innocent little you. Think yourself lucky that ‘them’ don’t think your are a bit ‘dubious’
2. I actually said the murder of a British subject by the intelligence services. Because I have not found a source that does not mean it was wrong”….Russia kills every third son born in Bristol hospital every three weeks!…of course I don’t have any evidence, or sources, … “Because I have not found a source that does not mean it was wrong”…..The world is made of orange …”Because I have not found a source that does not mean it was wrong” you are talking about state sponsored murder by Britain in Britain to find that Russia is OK in killing people in London….prove it.
“Extradition is nothing to do with the reservation to article Article IX. The issue is the World Court having no jurisdiction over the US because of its reservation to the article. That’s why Le Blanc says … That’s all it is – a “symbol of opposition” which is why even the opponents of ratification went along with it. You can’t argue with Le Blanc, Chomsky, and the world court decision. The US is not bound by the convention so stop babbling.”
So you accept that genocide is a crime in the US, well that’s a change anyway. You know when you said the US can commit genocide……I’m sorry that you are unable to understand the testimony of legal experts that the UN Conventions the same as signed by all other signees…. The fact that the US ACTUALLY sends those accused of genocide, including its own citizens to stand trial in UN courts for genocide, and that the US Supreme Court has upheld the power of the UN Convention, without the need for a congressional vote…this is in both the spirit and the letter of the UN convention.
John Bellinger, Legal Adviser to the US State Department wrote 16 Oct. 07 http://www.state.gov/s/l/rls/93632.htm …‘Last Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a significant case involving U.S. treaty obligations. The Government urged the Court to affirm the President’s authority to order compliance with a ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague…. [Regarding the Consular relations protocols]. The Optional Protocol allows states who disagree about what the Vienna Convention requires to take their dispute to the ICJ. And the UN Charter, another treaty binding the United States, obligates its parties to comply with decisions of the ICJ…..The United States disagreed with the ICJ’s conclusion,…However, the obligation to comply with a decision of the ICJ is independent of the government’s views about the soundness of the Court’s decision…Accordingly, President Bush determined that we would comply with ICJ determination…..At the same time, to ensure that the United States will not have to wrestle with any future erroneous ICJ decisions, we exercised our right to withdraw from the Optional Protocol, the treaty that gave the ICJ the authority to hear cases of this sort”…..It is important to emphasize that the likelihood that other countries will comply with this international obligation depends heavily on U.S. performance under the treaty. We agreed in a treaty to abide by the decisions of the ICJ. Were the United States not to comply with the ICJ’s order, other countries could similarly argue that they do not need to respect the interests of our citizens….When the President made his determination that Texas should provide Medellín with a new hearing to comply with the ICJ’s decision, he was doing what Congress expected him to do, namely exercising his authority under the U.S. Constitution to effect compliance with a U.S. treaty obligation. The Texas courts disagreed, which is why the Supreme Court is hearing the case. We look forward to the Supreme Court’s decision, which should come down some time this winter.”
Now read this very slowly…a decision by the ICJ that the US disagrees with but upholds… because it is bound by such treaties….do you think, or have proof that they would not use this in the case of genocide??? That the US has to comply with it because it signed the UN charter…understand? It is so simple a 10 year old child could understand. I suggest you find one.
3. “They could not have stopped the shelling of civilians without crossing into Georgia, just as the Americans seem to like doing in Pakistan.”…..Prove that US troops, except those with Pakistani permission, are in Pakistan, that they are occupying parts of Pakistan, looting, talking cities, murdering civilians?
” So what exactly did the UN say when they condemned Russia then?” The member states have, unlike Russia when they supported NATO in Kosovo. These states will vote on any resolution to condemn, or support Russian actions…don’t think Russia will get the support do you? ‘”Aerial bombardments, snipers, tanks • these are devastating for children and this is a number one concern that the huge escalation in violence and conflict will have a psychological impact not only on children but on their parents as well,” said Benjamin Perks, Deputy Representative of UNICEF in Georgia. ….The Secretary-General’s Representative on the Human Rights of IDPs, Walter Kälin, has expressed his alarm at reports that humanitarian access is still blocked and by allegations of widespread looting of property left behind by the displaced…He “urges all parties to the conflict to ensure that persons who wish to do so can leave areas affected by violence, that property left behind be protected, and that unimpeded access for humanitarian organizations to conflict areas be granted,” according to a news release issued in Geneva.
16 August 2008 • Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today in New York met with his top advisers regarding the United Nations’ approach to the current situation in Georgia. ..Mr. Ban is also speaking separately with the President of the Security Council, the body’s five permanent members and Irakli Alasania, the Permanent Representative of Georgia to the UN. We’ll await what is said,
Bush said yesterday, ‘Russia needs to honor the agreement and withdraw its forces, and of course end military operations…. There’s no room for debate on this matter. The United Nations Security Council has adopted numerous resolutions concerning Georgia. These resolutions are based on the premise that South Ossetia and Abkhazia remain within the borders of Georgia and that their underlying conflicts will be resolved through international negotiations. These resolutions are based on the premise that South Ossetia and Abkhazia are to be considered a part of the Georgian territory, and to the extent there’s conflicts they will be resolved peacefully. …These resolutions reaffirm Georgia’s sovereignty and independence and territorial integrity. Russia itself has endorsed these resolutions. The international community is clear that South Ossetia and Abkhazia are part of Georgia, and the United States fully recognizes this reality….We will continue to stand behind Georgia’s democracy; we will continue to insist “….The leading member of the UN opposes the invasion, the UN is an organization of counties, and it is they who vote on the UN’s stance. Russia has not, nor will not get the support that the UN and Russia in the UN gave NATO in Kosovo…that is fact.
4. “”The same with the UK, as the European Court has found.”…So the ECHR have judged the action of Britain…Britain has been held to account and found to have acted against the human rights of victims…Russia is not held to account, war crime allegations are not investigated and you never call for them to be, nor call for a independent eye to examine…I have agreed that British, NATO, whoever should face investigation on any allegation, and that independent investigations by the ECHR is perfectly acceptable to me…..but you think Russia is above all that..
What a cowardly little denier you really are.
1. “Secondly the threat was alleged to have been made by Taylor through his solicitor….that is fuckwit, that Taylor was alleged to have threatened Stalker”
Only you edited Wikipedia to say exactly what you had been saying here. That Taylor made an allegation against Stalker • which is nonsense.
What a scumbag! Editing Wikipedia, and pretending someone else would put your inaccurate argument into a Wikipedia page for the sake of your bitchy arguments. Go back to Wikipedia and undo your dishonest edit.
2. Idiot. The case you give a link to is nothing to do with genocide, article IX or the US reservation to it. It is case about a man accused of rape and murder. You are still at odds with Le Blanc and Chomsky, and you are wrong.
3. So the UN did not condemn Russia. I see.
4. “but you think Russia is above all that”
It isn’t.
Keep going muppet. Correct your dishonest Wikipedia edit, learn about article IX and then flush yourself down the toilet.
Dear Putin’s-bitch, I do hope you are well,
“John Bull:
1. so the three, or is it four, SEPARATE people who have overhauled the Stalker entry, and the six others who have expanded and edited the entry are all a big conspiracy all aimed at getting you….get over yourself you pompous little twerp. The whole point of Wikipedia is that it evolves constantly; it expands and is refined by the users, wherever they are. It changes every day, and every hour of the day as it is open to the world. These entries are then checked to ensure their accuracy by a body of enthusiastic users. These moderators take accuracy very seriously…it’s not about you; it’s just what Wikipedia works that way. It is not my fault if you are if your mental retardation and bigotry blind you to what is said in the quote.
By the by, the LIE you gave was that MI5 during the Cold War murdered an innocent man who they mistook for a KGB agent. This murder being done in London by MI5 agents using a poison dart…it is obvious you got confused with the KGB’s murder of a remarkable BBC reporter & playwright using a poison dart in London during the cold war…are you foolish enough to think that anyone would believe that such a murder, such a controversial, juicy murder, is not recorded ANYWHERE. No it is a lie.
2. I know you have difficulty understanding things we’ll try again. The US Government, under Bush, went to the highest Court in the land to implement an ICJ ruling and change US law because of the ruling. This ruling is one they vehemently disagree with; concerns Bush’s beloved Texas; and deals with a multiple murderer/rapist. They had no choice but to comply with the ICJ ruling because they are bound by it though membership of an optional protocol of the Consular convention, which as UN Treaty this meant they HAD to comply. They are going to comply, then leave this OPTIONAL protocol. = COMPLY then LEAVE the protocol, though not the Convention as a whole. With the UN’s genocide convention the same forces apply, they would they would HAVE to COMPLY (as the current case and US Constitutional Law decrees that they HAVE TO they have NO CHOICE BUT TO COMPLY EVEN IF THE DISSAGREE WITH IT), as previous posts have shown (using constitutional experts au fait with current US constitutional law) such international treaties override US law, they would then have the option of leaving the Genocide Convention, the ICJ role in judging the Genocide convention is NOT OPTIONAL, the UN genocide convention is not bound by any internal US political maneuvering…the US has signed up for the full UN convention as if they had not it could never have joined the UN genocide convention., and, as the expert’s blog, and all the up to date legal opinion I gave you, and LEAVE THE UN COMPELTLY, as not accepting ICJ jurisdiction in incompatible with UN membership as it forms a key, irremovable element to the UN Charter all members have to sign. As it would be impossible to be a member they would have to leave AFTER COMPLING WITH THE ICJ ruling: comply then leave…so you are totally wrong… Current, up to date law (remember that law is an evolving thing and Le Blanc’s book was writing in ‘91) and more importantly actual reality show what would happen. I can foresee (though unlike you I’m not psychic) no circumstances where the US would leave the Genocide Convention or the UN. So you’ve dropped the pathetic assertion that genocide is legal in the US, it isn’t, either for individuals or for countries, including the US.
Notice you don’t prove your ridiculous contention that Americans have invaded Pakistan, taking cities, looting etc …very weak it was too…..About Russia’s illegal invasion of Georgia I do know you love your international law.
“EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
581
12.08.2008
Press release issued by the Registrar
European Court of Human Rights grants request for interim measures
The European Court of Human Rights has today indicated to the Government of the Russian Federation interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
On 11 August 2008 the Georgian Government requested the Court to indicate to the Government of the Russian Federation interim measures to the effect that the Russian Government should “refrain from taking any measures which may threaten the life or state of health of the civilian population and to allow the Georgian emergency forces to carry out all the necessary measures in order to provide assistance to the remaining injured civilian population and soldiers via humanitarian corridor”. The Agent of the Georgian Government informed the Court that this request was made in the context of an application directed against the Russian Federation alleging violations of Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention.
The terms of the Court’s decision are as follows:
“On 12 August 2008 the President of the Court, acting as President of Chamber, decided to apply Rule 39 of the Rules of Court (interim measures) considering that the current situation gives rise to a real and continuing risk of serious violations of the Convention. With a view to preventing such violations and pursuant to Rule 39, the President calls upon both the High Contracting Parties concerned to comply with their engagements under the Convention particularly in respect of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.
In accordance with Rule 39 § 3, the President further requests both Governments concerned to inform the Court of the measures taken to ensure that the Convention is fully complied with.”
Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court (Interim measures):
“1. The Chamber or, where appropriate, its President may, at the request of a party or of any other person concerned, or of its own motion, indicate to the parties any interim measure which it considers should be adopted in the interests of the parties or of the proper conduct of the proceedings before it.
2. Notice of these measures shall be given to the Committee of Ministers.
3. The Chamber may request information from the parties on any matter connected with the implementation of any interim measure it has indicated.”
http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=839100&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649
in English this means that ‘Rule 39 indications ‘permit it to carry out an effective examination of the application and to ensure that the protection afforded by the Convention is effective’, that any indited county, in this case Russia, should stop doing harm to the victim, that would be Georgia, and to comply fully with the law, and not to block the ECHR investigation into the crime, Shaw, p 326.
I know how highly we both regard the ICJ, know what do they • the UN’s international court say…the ICJ investigation into Russia’s illegal invasion? (The proceedings start 8-10 Sep.) http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/140/14665.pdf, or how about the ICJ “Having considered the gravity of the situation, the President, acting under Article 74, paragraph 4, of the Rules of Court, urgently calls upon the Parties to act in such a way as will enable any order the Court may take on the request for provisional measures to have its appropriate effects.” http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/140/14669.pdf . Art. 74 being ‘Article 74….4. Pending the meeting of the Court, the President may call upon the parties to act in such a way as will enable any order the Court may make on the request for provisional measures to have its appropriate effects.’ http://www.icj-cij.org/documents/index.php?p1=4&p2=3&p3=0
So the ICJ think the Russian crimes are important, that Russia should stop doing them, and not block the investigation…..so you still think the UN will support Russia….what a tosser you are really!!!! Still think that Russia will get a UN agreement that their illegal invasion was a humanitarian intervention……you cannot be THAT deluded surly?
No one can be wrong about EVERYTING. You are. Some would think you are an American stooge by being a caricature fascist gimp…most peculiar.
1. “the three, or is it four, SEPARATE people who have overhauled the Stalker entry, and the six others who have expanded and edited the entry are all a big conspiracy all aimed at getting you….get over yourself you pompous little twerp. The whole point of Wikipedia”
No, a tosser conspiracy – you. You have now edited John Stalker’s Wikipedia page under two different usernames, and one ip address. Two of those usernames have made no other edits on Wikipedia apart from the John Stalker page (all on 17th and 18th August).. Stop being a nob. You’ve been caught red handed.
2. Idiot. José Medellín was executed two weeks ago when the Supreme Court stuck two fingers up to the ICJ. Your point would still have been lame if he had not been executed.
3. “Notice you don’t prove your ridiculous contention that Americans have invaded Pakistan, taking cities, looting etc …very weak it was too…..About Russia’s illegal invasion of Georgia I do know you love your international law.”
They repeatedly violated Pakistani airspace to deal with cross border attacks. Same difference. A breach of another country’s sovereignty to deal with military attacks • not to mention Nicaragua; how was that for an ICJ judgement.
Bull
John Bull:
Get over yourself you pompous little dick…
Still no info on blowpipe wielding MI5 murder’s, strange that.
“2. Idiot. José Medellín was executed two weeks ago when the Supreme Court stuck two fingers up to the ICJ. Your point would still have been lame if he had not been executed.”
I see you didn’t actually read the judgment did you. You should have. Actually the judgment was interesting, and there was dissenting view in the judgment. His appeal was held even though it was not made in time, which is quite cool really. Anyway
Now do try to remember that genocide is illegal in the US in all DOMESTIC courts…this is important. The Medellin case was about US domestic law. The ruling states:-
“No one disputes that the Avena decision—a decision that flows from the treaties through which the United States submitted to ICJ jurisdiction with respect to Vienna Convention disputes—constitutes an international law obligation on the part of the United States.”
INTERNATIONAL LAW OBLIGATION, just to spell it out for you. GENOCIDE ALREADY ILLGAL DOMITCALLY. The Genocide convention is about INTERNATIONAL LAW.
And that is the KEY; the highest Court in the US, the court that oversees the running and operation of the US Constitution, has ruled that all US UN treaties are legally binding on the US internationally. That the UN Genocide Convention is legally binding on the US.
“The Protocol says nothing about the effect of an ICJ decision and does not itself commit signatories to comply with an ICJ judgment. The Protocol is similarly silent as to any enforcement mechanism.”
The UN Genocide Convention and the UN Charter has explicit rules to force the members to abide with the MANTADTORY, non-optional ICJ protocols. Failure to comply = expulsion form the Treaty and the UN, = automatically expelled.
“…There are currently 47 nations that are parties to the Optional Protocol and 171 nations that are parties to the Vienna Convention. Yet neither Medellín nor his amici have identified a single nation that treats ICJ judgments as binding in domestic courts”
So in your twisted little view, is genocide legal to all countries?
“Even though the ICJ’s judgment in Avena is not “the supreme Law of the Land,” U. S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2, no one disputes that it constitutes an international law obligation on the part of the United States”
NO ONE DISPUTETS THAT INTERNATIONAL TREATIES ARE SUPREME. The Constitutional Court has expressly codified this in constitutional law that is binding on the US. The guardians of the US constitution have made it explicit and binding on the US government, from the President down.
“The dissent [the Judge who did not agree wit the decision and issued a separate judgment] worries that our decision casts doubt on some 70-odd treaties under which the United States has agreed to submit disputes to the ICJ according to “roughly similar” provisions….. Again, under our established precedent, some treaties are self-executing and some are not, depending on the treaty. That the judgment of an international tribunal might not automatically become domestic law hardly means the underlying treaty is “useless.” …. Such judgments would still constitute international obligations, the proper subject of political and diplomatic negotiations. …(directing the”appropriate agencies” to “prescribe regulations to implement the obligations of the United States under Article 3″ of the Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment);”
Or the Genocide convention. Genocide is already against US domestic law, which is the transferring of the UN Genocide convention into domestic, as the convention demanded.
“Congress has indeed authorized the President to represent the United States before the United Nations, the ICJ, and the Security Council, 22 …U. S. C. §287, but the authority of the President to represent the United States before such bodies speaks to the President’s international responsibilities.” http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-984.pdf
The US Congress have given the power to the US President to represent the US before the ICJ, that such treaties are wholly the Presidents prerogative, that, once ratified the President does not need Congress to approve, or disapprove, Congress has no power to change international treaties.
Now where shall we begin? Oh I know, genocide is a federal crime in the US, see previous post. That is it is already illegal in US DOMESTIC LAW. That it is ALREADY ILLEGAL in the US to commit genocide (even though you said it was)
But what is really important in the Supreme Court Ruling is that it confirms, in definitive law, that INTERNATIOAL treaties, genocide in this case, does not need Congress to make any ruling on any aspect of the treaty. That the US is automatically empowered by Congress in international treaties, that they cannot change them once the President has signed. That is that the UN Genocide Convention has the power over the US because it acts in disputes between STATES (countries) that is INTERANTIONALLY. And finally that such treaties are SUPREME under US law.
That the US is subject to the ICJ jurisdiction as part of the Genocide convention, an INTERNATIONAL TREATY. The ruling PROVES this is the case under US law.
I know you are not very bright but do try harder to understand!
3. “They repeatedly violated Pakistani airspace to deal with cross border attacks. Same difference.”
I see so infringing another countries airspace, for which this government made an official complaint to that US government, is the same as Russia sending ground troops, taking cites, illegally occupying territory, looting, etc….it is not…even if it was (which it isn’t) that does not excuse Russia
You don’t mention that Russia has had judgments against them regarding Georgia…Georgia have won the fist legal round….you never do criticize Russia though do you?? You do agree that Russia should comply with the ICJ judgments though???
Bull
John Bull:
Get over yourself you pompous little dick…
Still no info on blowpipe wielding MI5 murderers, strange that.
“2. Idiot. José Medellín was executed two weeks ago when the Supreme Court stuck two fingers up to the ICJ. Your point would still have been lame if he had not been executed.”
I see you didn’t actually read the judgment did you. You should have. Actually the judgment was interesting, and there was dissenting view in the judgment. His appeal was held even though it was not made in time, which is quite cool really. Anyway
Now do try to remember that genocide is illegal in the US in all DOMESTIC courts…this is important. The Medellin case was about US domestic law. The ruling states:-
“No one disputes that the Avena decision—a decision that flows from the treaties through which the United States submitted to ICJ jurisdiction with respect to Vienna Convention disputes—constitutes an international law obligation on the part of the United States.”
INTERNATIONAL LAW OBLIGATION, just to spell it out for you. GENOCIDE ALREADY ILLGAL DOMITCALLY. The Genocide convention is about INTERNATIONAL LAW.
And that is the KEY; the highest Court in the US, the court that oversees the running and operation of the US Constitution, has ruled that all US UN treaties are legally binding on the US internationally. That the UN Genocide Convention is legally binding on the US.
“The Protocol says nothing about the effect of an ICJ decision and does not itself commit signatories to comply with an ICJ judgment. The Protocol is similarly silent as to any enforcement mechanism.”
The UN Genocide Convention and the UN Charter has explicit rules to force the members to abide with the MANTADTORY, non-optional ICJ protocols. Failure to comply = expulsion form the Treaty and the UN, = automatically expelled.
“…There are currently 47 nations that are parties to the Optional Protocol and 171 nations that are parties to the Vienna Convention. Yet neither Medellín nor his amici have identified a single nation that treats ICJ judgments as binding in domestic courts”
So in your twisted little view, is genocide legal to all countries?
“Even though the ICJ’s judgment in Avena is not “the supreme Law of the Land,” U. S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2, no one disputes that it constitutes an international law obligation on the part of the United States”
NO ONE DISPUTETS THAT INTERNATIONAL TREATIES ARE SUPREME. The Constitutional Court has expressly codified this in constitutional law that is binding on the US. The guardians of the US constitution have made it explicit and binding on the US government, from the President down.
“The dissent [the Judge who did not agree wit the decision and issued a separate judgment] worries that our decision casts doubt on some 70-odd treaties under which the United States has agreed to submit disputes to the ICJ according to “roughly similar” provisions….. Again, under our established precedent, some treaties are self-executing and some are not, depending on the treaty. That the judgment of an international tribunal might not automatically become domestic law hardly means the underlying treaty is “useless.” …. Such judgments would still constitute international obligations, the proper subject of political and diplomatic negotiations. …(directing the”appropriate agencies” to “prescribe regulations to implement the obligations of the United States under Article 3″ of the Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment);”
Or the Genocide convention. Genocide is already against US domestic law, which is the transferring of the UN Genocide convention into domestic, as the convention demanded.
“Congress has indeed authorized the President to represent the United States before the United Nations, the ICJ, and the Security Council, 22 …U. S. C. §287, but the authority of the President to represent the United States before such bodies speaks to the President’s international responsibilities.” http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-984.pdf
The US Congress have given the power to the US President to represent the US before the ICJ, that such treaties are wholly the Presidents prerogative, that, once ratified the President does not need Congress to approve, or disapprove, Congress has no power to change international treaties.
Now where shall we begin? Oh I know, genocide is a federal crime in the US, see previous post. That is it is already illegal in US DOMESTIC LAW. That it is ALREADY ILLEGAL in the US to commit genocide (even though you said it was)
But what is really important in the Supreme Court Ruling is that it confirms, in definitive law, that INTERNATIONAL treaties, genocide in this case, does not need Congress to make any ruling on any aspect of the treaty. That the US is automatically empowered by Congress in international treaties, that they cannot change them once the President has signed. That is that the UN Genocide Convention has the power over the US because it acts in disputes between STATES (countries) that is INTERANTIONALLY. And finally that such treaties are SUPREME under US law.
That the US is subject to the ICJ jurisdiction as part of the Genocide convention, an INTERNATIONAL TREATY. The ruling PROVES this is the case.
I know you are not very bright but do try harder to understand!
3. “They repeatedly violated Pakistani airspace to deal with cross border attacks. Same difference.”
I see so infringing another countries airspace, for which this government made an official complaint to that US government, is the same as Russia sending ground troops, taking cites, illegally occupying territory, looting, etc….it is not…even if it was (which it isn’t) that does not excuse Russia
You don’t mention that Russia has had judgments against them regarding Georgia…Georgia have won the fist legal round….you never do criticize Russia though do you?? You do agree that Russia should comply with the ICJ judgments though???
“Even though the ICJ’s judgment in Avena is not “the supreme Law of the Land,” U. S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2, no one disputes that it constitutes an international law obligation on the part of the United States” • “NO ONE DISPUTETS THAT INTERNATIONAL TREATIES ARE SUPREME. The Constitutional Court has expressly codified this in constitutional law that is binding on the US. The guardians of the US constitution have made it explicit and binding on the US government, from the President down.”
Why do you waste your own time? The US has no reservation to “Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations” which is what Avena pertained to. These judgements are about Mexican nationals not being given access to their consulate when charged with crimes in the US. They do not deal with the US reservation to article IX.
You cannot get around the fact that the international court has no jurisdiction to try the US for genocide. You are trying to pick comments here and there and apply them as legal precedents, but none of the cases you cite relate to treaties ratified with reservations.
Now go and undo your dishonest edits on Wikipedia, accept the facts about article IX and stop catching at straws • hopefully then you will drown.