Category Archives: Suspects of international crimes

The list of suspects of international crimes extends to individuals who fulfil the following criteria:

1. They have not been formally indicted by a national or international court; and

2. Prima facie evidence points to the fact that they have

Committed, alone or with others, international criminal acts; or

Ordered, solicited, incited or induced the commission of international criminal acts; or
Facilitated the commission of international
criminal acts by aiding, abetting or otherwise assisting in the
commission of these acts, including by providing the means for its
commission; or
In any other way wilfully contributed to the
commission or attempted commission of such crimes by a group of persons
acting with a common purpose.

The following acts are deemed "international criminal acts" for the purpose of this list:

Genocide
Crimes against humanity
War Crimes
Aggression (crime against the peace)

Torture

The
Webmaster disclaims any responsibility for errors of fact. The
Webmaster accepts requests to correct mistakes, delete names and add new names.

Rwanda’s massacres preceded by a false-flag operation covered-up by the UN

Evidence of Kagame’s Crimes Suppressed by Chief Rwanda Prosecutor Louise Arbour – Affidavit of Michael Andrew Hourigan

http://www.globalresearch.ca/evidence-of-kagames-crimes-suppressed-by-chief-rwanda-prosecutor-louise-arbour-testimony-of-michael-andrew-hourigan/5377200

COMPLETE DOCUMENT

Date of document:                                          27 November 2006

Filed on behalf of the Plaintiff by:            

Michael Hourigan

Carrington House

61-63 Carrington Street

Adelaide South Austrlia 5000

AUSTRALIA

Ph: (08) 8237 0584

Mobile: 0415 668 732

Fax: (08) 8237 0555

Email: mikehourigan@gmail.com                                                                    

Date and time of filing or transmission:    27 November 2006

AFFIDAVIT

I, MICHAEL ANDREW HOURIGAN Lawyer of 61-63 Carrington Street Adelaide 5000 in the State of South Australia Solicitor MAKE OATH AND SAY as follows:

1                    I am a qualified legal practitioner in the State of South Australia. I was also a former police detective before completing a law degree in 1995 after which time I took up a post as a Crown Prosecutor with the Director of Public Prosecutions (D.P.P. Adelaide).

2                    In April, 1996 I left the D.P.P. in Adelaide and took up a position as an investigator with the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.

3                    Soon after my arrival in Rwanda I was put made a team leader in charge of a team consisting of about 20 members and the team was to be known as ‘the National Team’.

4                    I was directed by Judge Richard Goldstone (the then Chief Prosecutor) and Judge Honoré Rakotomana (the then ICTR Prosecutor) and Mr. Alphonse Breau (the then Director of Investigations) to focus my teams investigations on the following matters:-

4.1.            investigate the criminal conduct of Colonel Theoneste Bagosora and then locate and arrest him;

4.2.            investigate the criminal conduct of Colonel Anatole Nsengiyumva and then locate and arrest him;

4.3.            Investigate the murder of thousands of Rwandan elite in the first days of the genocide by the Rwandan Presidential.

4.4.            identify the person(s) responsible for the fatal rocket attack on 6 April 1994 killing President Habyarimana and all others on board;

5                    Together with my investigators we conducted investigations into these matters throughout the next year. During the course of 1996 I was called upon to brief Judge Goldstone and then his replacement Judge Louise Arbour and other senior prosecutors on the progress of our investigations into Bagosora, Nsengiyumva, the Presidential Guard and the rocket attack upon President Habyarimana’s aircraft.

6                    At no time did Judge Goldstone, Judge Arbour or any other member of the ICTR ever indicate to me that our investigations into the downing of the President Habyrimana’s aircraft were outside the ICTR mandate. On the contrary, it was made clear to me that our investigations into the rocket attack upon the President’s aircraft was an act of international terrorism which clearly fell within the ICTR statute Article 4 Violations of Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions:-

Article 4: Violations of Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II

The International Tribunal for Rwanda shall have the power to prosecute persons committing or ordering to be committed serious violations of Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 for the Protection of War Victims, and of Additional Protocol II thereto of 8 June 1977. These violations shall include, but shall not be limited to:

a) Violence to life, health and physical or mental well-being of persons, in particular murder as well as cruel treatment such as torture, mutilation or any form of corporal punishment;

b)

c)

d) Acts of terrorism;

e)

f)

g)

h)

7                    I am pleased to say that the National Team was successful and we achieved the following results:-

7.1.            Located, arrested and charged Colonel Theoneste Bagosora with Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity;

7.2.            Located, arrested and charged Colonel Anatole Nsengiyumva Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity;

7.3.            Gathered evidence against senior members of the Presidential Guard in relation to the killing of key Rwandan citizens, including but not limited to, UNAMIR-protected VIPS  Justice Joseph Kavaruganda, (President of the Constitutional Court) and Vice President  Lando Ndasingwa (the head of the Parti liberal);

7.4.            In late January or early February 1997 members of the National Team were approached by three (3) informants (either former or serving member of the R.P.F.) claiming direct involvement in the 1994 fatal rocket attack upon the President’s aircraft. Their evidence specifically implicated the direct involvement of President Paul Kagame, members of his administration and military. The informants also advised that the Kagame administration was actively involved in covert operations aimed at murdering high profile expatriate Rwandans – once such murder was the death of Seth Sedashonga in Nairobi.

8                    With respect to the highly sensitive information from the three informants regarding the plane crash I immediately informed my Commander Jim Lyons. My Director Mr. Alphonse Breau was out of the country and I arranged for him to be told by telephone.

9                    The information from the sources was very detailed and seemed very credible. I was very concerned about the sensitivity of the information and arranged for an urgent ‘secure’ telephone call to Judge Arbour.

10                Commander Jim Lyons and I attended at the US Embassy in Kigali and I made a call to Judge Arbour at the US Embassy in the Hague using an encrypted (‘secure’) STU III telephone. I informed Judge Arbour in considerable detail about the information implicating President Kagame. She was excited by the break through and advised me that the information corroborated some other information she had just learnt from Alison Des Forge the week before. At no time did she suggest that our investigations were improper. On the contrary, I would describe her mood as upbeat and excited that at last we were making significant progress into the events surrounding the plane crash.

11                Judge Arbour was concerned about the safety of the informants and my men. I advised her that the informants’ identities had been kept secure and if she so directed me I would arrange for my investigators involved in the plane crash to leave Rwanda. She directed that my investigators should leave and I agreed to have them travel from the country on suitable inquiries inNairobi. As for me I declined to leave Rwanda and advised her that I wanted to stay with my team and assist them complete other important investigations. She consented to this  but asked me to keep in touch with her while she considered what to do with this sensitive information.

12                During the next week I was directed by senior members of the UN in Kigali that I was required to travel to the ICTY in the Hague in order to meet with Judge Arbour and brief on her on our investigations in the rocket attack upon President Habyarimana’s aircraft.

13                Some days later I was approached at the ICTR headquarters in Kigali by Mr. Michael Hall, UN Deputy Security (NY). He advised me that I would be flying to Arusha the next day on the ICTR aircraft and from there board an international KLM flight to Amsterdam. Mr. Hall asked me to give him any information that I had on air crash and he would convey it to the airport in a UN diplomatic pouch. I then gave Mr. Hall a single floppy disc containing a memorandum I had prepared for Judge Arbour.

14                The next day Mr. Hall conveyed me to the Kigali airport where I checked in for the UN flight. There Mr. Hall and I were told that the flight was overbooked and that I could not to Arusha. Mr. Hall became agitated and told the UN flight officer that the UN Secretary General Mr. Kofi Annan had personally ordered my attendance in Arusha for an international connection the next day. As a consequence I was given a seat on the UN flight and flew to Arusha.

15                The next day I flew to the Hague and over-knighted in a hotel near the ICTY.

16                The following morning I met with Mr. Al Breau and briefed him on the information concerning the plane crash. Together we discussed forming a special ICTR investigations unit based outside of Kigali to investigate the plane crash.

17                Following breakfast Mr. Breau and I attended at the ICTY and met with Judge Arbour. Also present was Mr. Mohammed Othman, Acting ICTR Prosecutor.

18                I briefed Judge Arbour on the informants and their information regarding the involvement of President Kagame and members of the RPF in the downing of President Habyrimana’s aircraft.

19                I presented her with a copy of a memo I had prepared entitled ‘Secret National Team Inquiry – Internal Memorandum’ and this document which is undated is attached to this statement. This document detailed the information provided by the three informants.

20                To my surprise Judge Arbour was aggressive and questioned me about the source of the information regarding the informants and the quality and potential reliability of their information. I advised her that the information was given to me by members from my team – the National Team. Those members were Amadou Deme and Peter Dnistriansky. I advised her that I held both investigators in the highest regard. I did say that I was not able to provide any advice as to the reliability of their information as it had not been tested. However, I did suggest that it was very detailed and this is itself meant that it could be subjected to considerable forensic examination.

21                Mr. Al Breau also expressed his strong view that both Amadou Deme and Peter Dnistrianksy were highly effective and reliable men.

22                Judge Arbour then advised me that the National Team investigation was at an end because in her view it was not in our mandate. She suggested that the ICTR’s mandate only extended to events within the genocide, which in her view began ‘after’ the plane crash.

23                I was astounded at this statement. I pointed to the temporal mandate of the ICTR being 1 January 1994 until 31 December 1994 and this clearly covered the time of the plane crash. I also addressed the ‘terrorism’ and ‘murder’ provisions of the ICTR statute.

24                More particularly I also told her that this was the first time she had ever suggested that this was outside the ICTR mandate. I reminded her that I had personally briefed her before about our investigations  into the plane crash and that she had never ever expressed a view that this matter should be part of an ICTR inquiry.

25                I expressed my strong view to her that these Rwandan informants were courageous and were deserving of our protection. I cautioned her that the UN had a history of abandoning informants in Rwanda and I specifically reminded her of the UN’s abandonment of Jean Pierre Turatsinze in 1994.

26                Judge then became hostile and asked me if I was challenging her authority to direct to end our investigations into the plane crash.

27                I told her that I was not questioning her authority only her judgement. I informed her that I was her servant and I would obey her direction.

28                Judge Arbour then asked me if the memo that I had prepared for her was the only copy. I told her that it was and she said she was pleased to hear that and placed in her office filing cabinet.

29                She then asked me to leave the room.

30                I was extremely concerned at Judge Arbour’s decision and felt that it was wrong both in law and policy.

31                I returned to Kigali and a short time later resigned from the ICTR.

32                After my resignation from the ICTR I was offered a position as an investigator with the UN’s Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) in New York. Soon after taking up my appointment I was asked to provide OIOS  investigators investigating corruption within the ICTR with a statement re my service in Rwanda for the ICTR.

33                On 1 August 1997 I prepared an internal memorandum detailing various issues which I felt lay behind some of the difficulties with the ICTR. A copy of this memorandum is attached here.

34                The OIOS leadership were not at all interested in the memorandum and they expressed their concern at some of the contents of the document implicating the Secretary General in some of the serious events inRwandain1994.

35                I completed six months with OIOS and resigned.

36                I feel that unknown persons from within the UN leadership and possibly elsewhere pressured Judge Arbour to end the National Team’s investigations into the shooting down of President Habyarimana.

37                Following my resignation my National Team was dismembered – the National Team investigations into the plane crash were brought to an end.

38                I have suffered at the hands of Judge Arbour and the UN because my career with the ICTR was brought to an untimely and ignominious end. I was proud of serving with the ICTR but I felt that I could not work for Judge Arbour when, in my view, she acted for personal reasons against the interests of the ICTR, the UN and world community which we served.

39                I know the facts deposed to herein to be true of my own knowledge, information and belief except where otherwise plainly appears.

John O. Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security, justifies drone attacks

The White House  Office of the Press Secretary
June 29, 2011

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/06/29/remarks-john-o-brennan-assistant-president-homeland-security-and-counter

Remarks of John O. Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, on Ensuring al-Qa’ida’s Demise –

As Prepared for Delivery
Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Washington, D.C.

Good afternoon.  Thank you, Dean Einhorn, for your very warm welcome and for your decades of service—in government, global institutions and here at SAIS.  And it’s a special pleasure to be introduced by John McLaughlin, a friend and colleague of many years and one of our nation’s great intelligence professionals.

It’s a pleasure to be here at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, an institution that has instilled in generations of public servants the pragmatic approach to problem-solving that is essential for the effective conduct of foreign policy.  I especially want to thank the Merrill Center for Strategic Studies for its emphasis on national security and for joining with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to introduce students to our Intelligence Community and inspiring the next generation of intelligence professionals.     

It’s wonderful to see so many friends and colleagues who I’ve had the privilege to work with over many years.  You have devoted your lives to protecting our nation from many threats, including the one that brings me here today, and one that has claimed the lives of some of our friends and colleagues—that is the continued terrorist threat from al-Qa’ida.  

Today, we are releasing President Obama’s National Strategy for Counterterrorism, which formalizes the approach that we’ve been pursuing and adapting for the past two and half years to prevent terrorist attacks and to ensure al-Qa’ida’s demise.  I’m pleased that we are joined today by dedicated professionals from across the federal government who helped to shape our strategy and who work tirelessly every day to keep our country safe.  Thank you for being here.

An unclassified summary of our strategy is being posted today to the White House website, WhiteHouse.gov.   In the time I have with you, I’d like to put our strategy in context, outline its key goals and principals, and describe how we’re putting these principles into practice to protect the American people.    

I want to begin with the larger strategic environment that shapes our counterterrorism efforts.  This starts with the recognition that this counterterrorism strategy is only one part of President Obama’s larger National Security Strategy.  This is very important.  Our counterterrorism policies do not define our entire foreign policy; rather, they are a vital part of—and are designed to reinforce—our broader national security interests.

Since taking office, President Obama has worked to restore a positive vision of American leadership in the world—leadership defined, not by the threats and dangers that we will oppose, but by the security, opportunity and dignity that America advances in partnership with people around the world.  This has enhanced our national security in many areas against many threats.  

At the same time, many of the President’s broader foreign policy and national security initiatives also help to achieve our more focused counterterrorism goals.  They do so by addressing the political, economic and social conditions that can sometimes fuel violent extremism and push certain individuals into the arms of al-Qa’ida.

For instance, when our diplomats promote the peaceful resolution of political disputes and grievances, when our trade and economic policies generate growth that lifts people out of poverty, when our development experts support good governance that addresses people’s basic needs, when we stand up for universal human rights—all of this can also help undermine violent extremists and terrorists like al-Qa’ida.  Peaceful political, economic, and social progress undermines the claim that the only way to achieve change is through violence.  It can be a powerful antidote to the disillusionment and sense of powerlessness that can make some individuals more susceptible to violent ideologies.

Our strategy recognizes that our counterterrorism efforts clearly benefit from—and at times depend on—broader foreign policy efforts, even as our CT strategy focuses more narrowly on preventing terrorist attacks against our interests, at home and abroad.

This, obviously, is also the first counterterrorism strategy to reflect the extraordinary political changes that are sweeping the Middle East and North Africa.  It’s true that these changes may bring new challenges and uncertainty in the short-term, as we are seeing in Yemen.  It also is true that terrorist organizations, and nations that support them, will seek to capitalize on the instability that change can sometimes bring.  That is why we are working closely with allies and partners to make sure that these malevolent actors do not succeed in hijacking this moment of hope for their own violent ends.  

But as President Obama has said, these dramatic changes also mark an historic moment of opportunity.  So too for our counterterrorism efforts.  For decades, terrorist organizations like al-Qa’ida have preached that the only way to affect change is through violence.  Now, that claim has been thoroughly repudiated, and it has been repudiated by ordinary citizens, in Tunisia and Egypt and beyond, who are changing and challenging their governments through peaceful protest, even as they are sometimes met with horrific brutality, as in Libya and Syria.  Moreover, these citizens have rejected the medieval ideology of al-Qa’ida that divides people by faith and gender, opting instead to work together—Muslims and Christians, men and women, secular and religious.

It is the most profound change in the modern history of the Arab world, and al-Qa’ida and its ilk have been left on the sidelines, watching history pass them by.  Meanwhile, President Obama has placed the United States on the right side of history, pledging our support for the political and economic reforms and universal human rights that people in the region are demanding.  This, too, has profound implications for our counterterrorism efforts.

Against this backdrop, our strategy is very precise about the threat we face and the goals we seek.  Paul Nitze once observed that “one of the most dangerous forms of human error is forgetting what one is trying to achieve.”  President Obama is adamant that we never forget who we’re fighting or what we’re trying to achieve.

Let me start by saying that our strategy is not designed to combat directly every single terrorist organization in every corner of the world, many of which have neither the intent nor the capability to ever attack the United States or our citizens.

Our strategy of course recognizes that there are numerous nations and groups that support terrorism in order to oppose U.S. interests.  Iran and Syria remain leading state sponsors of terrorism.  Hezbollah and HAMAS are terrorist organizations that threaten Israel and our interests in the Middle East.  We will therefore continue to use the full range of our foreign policy tools to prevent these regimes and terrorist organizations from endangering our national security.

For example, President Obama has made it clear that the United States is determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.  And we will continue working closely with allies and partners, including sharing and acting upon intelligence, to prevent the flow of weapons and funds to Hezbollah and HAMAS and to prevent attacks against our allies, citizens or interests.

But the principal focus of this counterterrorism strategy—and the focus of our CT efforts since President Obama took office—is the network that poses the most direct and significant threat to the United States, and that is al-Qa’ida, its affiliates and its adherents.  We use these terms deliberately.

It is al-Qa’ida, the core group founded by Usama bin Laden, that has murdered our citizens, from the bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania to the attack on the U.S.S. Cole to the attacks of September 11th, which also killed citizens of more than 90 other countries.

It is al-Qa’ida’s affiliates—groups that are part of its network or share its goals—that have also attempted to attack our homeland.  It was al-Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), based in Yemen, that attempted to bring down that airliner over Detroit and which put explosives on cargo planes bound for the United States.  It was the Pakistani Taliban that sent Faisal Shahzad on his failed attempt to blow up an SUV in Times Square.

And it is al-Qa’ida’s adherents—individuals, sometimes with little or no direct physical contact with al-Qa’ida, who have succumbed to its hateful ideology and who have engaged in, or facilitated, terrorist activities here in the United States.  These misguided individuals are spurred on by the likes of al-Qaida’s Adam Gadahn and Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen, who speak English and preach violence in slick videos over the Internet.  And we have seen the tragic results, with the murder of a military recruiter in Arkansas two years ago and the attack on our servicemen and women at Fort Hood.

This is the first counterterrorism strategy that focuses on the ability of al-Qa’ida and its network to inspire people in the United States to attack us from within.  Indeed, this is the first counterterrorism strategy that designates the homeland as a primary area of emphasis in our counterterrorism efforts.       

Our strategy is also shaped by a deeper understanding of al-Qa’ida’s goals, strategy, and tactics. I’m not talking about al-Qa’ida’s grandiose vision of global domination through a violent Islamic caliphate.  That vision is absurd, and we are not going to organize our counterterrorism policies against a feckless delusion that is never going to happen.  We are not going to elevate these thugs and their murderous aspirations into something larger than they are.

Rather, President Obama is determined that our foreign and national security policies not play into al-Qa’ida’s strategy or its warped ideology.  Al-Qa’ida seeks to terrorize us into retreating from the world stage.  But President Obama has made it a priority to renew American leadership in the world, strengthening our alliances and deepening partnerships.  Al-Qa’ida seeks to portray America as an enemy of the world’s Muslims.  But President Obama has made it clear that the United States is not, and never will be, at war with Islam.   

Al-Qa’ida seeks to bleed us financially by drawing us into long, costly wars that also inflame anti-American sentiment.  Under President Obama, we are working to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan responsibly, even as we keep unrelenting pressure on al-Qa’ida.  Going forward, we will be mindful that if our nation is threatened, our best offense won’t always be deploying large armies abroad but delivering targeted, surgical pressure to the groups that threaten us.

Al-Qa’ida seeks to portray itself as a religious movement defending the rights of Muslims, but the United States will continue to expose al-Qa’ida as nothing more than murderers.  They purport to be Islamic, but they are neither religious leaders nor scholars; indeed, there is nothing Islamic or holy about slaughtering innocent men, women, and children.  They claim to protect Muslims, but the vast majority of al-Qa’ida’s victims are, in fact, innocent Muslim men, women, and children.  It is no wonder that the overwhelmingly majority of the world’s Muslims have rejected al-Qa’ida and why its ranks of supporters continue to decline.

Just as our strategy is precise about who our enemy is, it is clear about our posture and our goal.  This is a war—a broad, sustained, integrated and relentless campaign that harnesses every element of American power.  And we seek nothing less than the utter destruction of this evil that calls itself al-Qa’ida.

To achieve this goal, we need to dismantle the core of al-Qa’ida—its leadership in the tribal regions of Pakistan—and prevent its ability to reestablish a safe haven in the Pakistan–Afghanistan region.  In other words, we aim to render the heart of al-Qa’ida incapable of launching attacks against our homeland, our citizens, or our allies, as well as preventing the group from inspiring its affiliates and adherents to do so.

At the same time, ultimately defeating al-Qa’ida also means addressing the serious threat posed by its affiliates and adherents operating outside South Asia.  This does not require a “global” war, but it does require a focus on specific regions, including what we might call the periphery—places like Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, and the Maghreb.  This is another important distinction that characterizes this strategy.  As the al-Qa’ida core has weakened under our unyielding pressure, it has looked increasingly to these other groups and individuals to take up its cause, including its goal of striking the United States.

To destroy al-Qa’ida, we are pursuing specific and focused counterterrorism objectives.  
For example:

    We are protecting our homeland by constantly reducing our vulnerabilities and adapting and updating our defenses.
     
    We are taking the fight to wherever the cancer of al-Qa’ida manifests itself, degrading its capabilities and disrupting its operations.
     
    We are degrading the ability of al-Qa’ida’s senior leadership to inspire, communicate with, and direct the operations of its adherents around the world.
     
    We are denying al-Qa’ida any safe haven—the physical sanctuary that it needs to train, plot and launch attacks against us.
     
    We are aggressively confronting al-Qa’ida’s ideology, which attempts to exploit local—and often legitimate—grievances in an attempt to justify violence.
     
    We are depriving al-Qa’ida of its enabling means, including the illicit financing, logistical support, and online communications that sustain its network.
     
    And we are working to prevent al-Qa’ida from acquiring or developing weapons of mass destruction, which is why President Obama is leading the global effort to secure the world’s vulnerable materials in four years.

In many respects, these specific counterterrorism goals are not new.  In fact, they track closely with the goals of the previous administration.  Yet this illustrates another important characteristic of our strategy.  It neither represents a wholesale overhaul—nor a wholesale retention—of previous policies.

President Obama’s approach to counterterrorism is pragmatic, not ideological.  It’s based on what works.  It builds upon policies and practices that have been instituted and refined over the past decade, in partnership with Congress—a partnership we will continue.  And it reflects an evolution in our understanding of the threat, in the capabilities of our government, the capacity of our partners, and the tools and technologies at our disposal.        

What is new—and what I believe distinguishes this strategy—is the principles that are guiding our efforts to destroy al-Qa’ida.

First, we are using every lawful tool and authority available.  No single agency or department has sole responsibility for this fight because no single department or agency possesses all the capabilities needed for this fight.  This is—and must be—a whole-of-government effort, and it’s why the Obama Administration has strengthened the tools we need.

We’ve strengthened intelligence, expanding human intelligence and linguistic skills, and we’re constantly working to improve our capabilities and learn from our experiences.  For example, following the attack at Fort Hood and the failed attack over Detroit, we’ve improved the analytic process, created new groups to track threat information, and enhanced cooperation among our intelligence agencies, including better information sharing so that all threats are acted upon quickly.  

We’ve strengthened our military capabilities. We increased the size of our Special Forces, sped up the deployment of unique assets so that al-Qa’ida enjoys no safe haven, and ensured that our military and intelligence professionals are working more closely than ever before.

We’ve strengthened homeland security with a multi-layered defense, bolstering security at our borders, ports and airports; improving partnerships with state and local governments and allies and partners, including sharing more information; increasing the capacity of our first responders; and preparing for bioterrorism.  In taking these steps, we are finally fulfilling key recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

Learning the lessons of recent plots and attempted attacks, we’ve increased aviation security by strengthening watchlist procedures and sharing information in real-time; enhancing screening of cargo; and—for the first time—ensuring 100 percent screening of all passengers traveling in, to, and from the United States, which was another recommendation of the 9/11 Commission.  And we are constantly assessing and improving our defenses, as we did in replacing the old color-coded threat system with a more targeted approach that provides detailed information about specific, credible threats and suggested protective measures.

In addition, we are using the full range of law enforcement tools as part of our effort to build an effective and durable legal framework for the war against al-Qa’ida.  This includes our single most effective tool for prosecuting, convicting, and sentencing suspected terrorists—and a proven tool for gathering intelligence and preventing attacks—our Article III courts.  It includes reformed military commissions, which at times offer unique advantages.  And this framework includes the recently renewed PATRIOT Act.  In short, we must have a legal framework that provides our extraordinary intelligence, counterterrorism, and law enforcement professionals with all the lawful tools they need to do their job and keep our country safe.  We must not tie their hands.

For all these tools to work properly, departments and agencies across the federal government must work cooperatively.  Today, our personnel are working more closely together than ever before, as we saw in the operation that killed Usama bin Laden.  That success was not due to any one single person or single piece of information.  It was the result of many people in many organizations working together over many years.  And that is what we will continue to do.

Even as we use every tool in our government, we are guided by a second principle—the need for partnership with institutions and countries around the world, as we recognize that no one nation alone can bring about al-Qa’ida’s demise.  Over the past decade, we have made enormous progress in building and strengthening an international architecture to confront the threat from al-Qa’ida.  This includes greater cooperation with multilateral institutions such as the United Nations, our NATO allies, and regional organizations such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the African Union.

Over the past two and a half years, we have also increased our efforts to build the capacity of partners so they can take the fight to al-Qa’ida in their own countries.  That is why a key element of the President’s strategy in Afghanistan is growing Afghan security forces.  It’s why we’ll soon begin a transition so that Afghans can take responsibility for their own security.  And it’s why we must continue our cooperation with Pakistan.

In recent weeks we’ve been reminded that our relationship with Pakistan is not without tension or frustration.  We are now working with our Pakistani partners to overcome differences and continue our efforts against our common enemies.  It is essential that we do so.  As frustrating as this relationship can sometimes be, Pakistan has been critical to many of our most significant successes against al-Qa’ida.  Tens of thousands of Pakistanis—military and civilian—have given their lives in the fight against militancy.  And despite recent tensions, I am confident that Pakistan will remain one of our most important counterterrorism partners.

These kinds of security partnerships are absolutely vital.  The critical intelligence that allowed us to discover the explosives that AQAP was shipping to the United States in those cargo planes was provided by our Saudi Arabian partners.   Al-Qa’ida in Iraq has suffered major losses at the hands of Iraqi security forces, trained by the United States.  Despite the ongoing instability, our counterterrorism cooperation with Yemen continues, and I would argue that the recent territorial gains made by militants linked to AQAP only makes our CT partnership with Yemen more important.

Around the world, we will deepen our security cooperation with partners wherever al-Qa’ida attempts to take root, be it Somalia, the Sahel or Southeast Asia.  For while al-Qa’ida seeks to depict this fight as one between the world’s Muslims and the United States, it is actually the opposite—the international community, including Muslim-majority nations and Muslim communities, united against al-Qa’ida.

This leads to the third principle of our strategy—rather than pursuing a one-size fits-all approach, we recognize that different threats in different places demand different tools.  So even as we use all the resources at our disposal against al-Qa’ida, we will apply the right tools in the right way and in the right place, with laser focus.

In some places, such as the tribal regions between Afghanistan and Pakistan, we will deliver precise and overwhelming force against al-Qa’ida.  Whenever possible, our efforts around the world will be in close coordination with our partners.  And, when necessary, as the President has said repeatedly, if we have information about the whereabouts of al-Qa’ida, we will do what is required to protect the United States—as we did with bin Laden.

In some places, as I’ve described, our efforts will focus on training foreign security services.  In others, as with our Saudi Arabian and Gulf state partners, our focus will include shutting down al-Qa’ida’s financial pipelines.  With longtime allies and partners, as in Europe, we’ll thwart attacks through close intelligence cooperation.  Here in the United States—where the rule of law is paramount—it’s our federal, state, and local law enforcement and homeland security professionals who rightly take the lead.  Around the world, including here at home, we will continue to show that the United States offers a vision of progress and justice, while al-Qa’ida offers nothing but death and destruction.

Related to our counterterrorism strategy, I would also note that keeping our nation secure also depends on strong partnerships between government and communities here at home, including Muslim and Arab Americans, some of whom join us today.  These Americans have worked to protect their communities from al-Qa’ida’s violent ideology and they have helped to prevent terrorist attacks in our country.  Later this summer, the Obama Administration will unveil its approach for partnering with communities to prevent violent extremism in the United States.  And a key tenet of this approach is that when it comes to protecting our country, Muslim Americans are not part of the problem, they’re part of the solution.    

This relates to our fourth principle—building a culture of resilience here at home.  We are doing everything in our power to prevent another terrorist attack on our soil.  At the same time, a responsible, effective counterterrorism strategy recognizes that no nation, no matter how powerful—including a free and open society of 300 million Americans—can prevent every single threat from every single individual who wishes to do us harm.  It’s not enough to simply be prepared for attacks, we have to be resilient and recover quickly should an attack occur.

So, as a resilient nation, we are constantly improving our ability to withstand any attack—especially our critical infrastructure, including cyber—thereby denying al-Qa’ida the economic damage and disruption it seeks.  As a resilient government, we’re strengthening the partnerships that help states and localities recover quickly.  And as a resilient people, we must remember that every one of us can help deprive al-Qa’ida of the success it seeks.  Al-Qa’ida wants to terrorize us, so we must not give in to fear.  They want to change us, so we must stay true to who we are.

Which brings me to our final principle, in fact, the one that guides all the others—in all our actions, we will uphold the core values that define us as Americans.  I have spent more than thirty years working on behalf of our nation’s security.  I understand the truly breathtaking capabilities of our intelligence and counterterrorism communities.  But I also know that the most powerful weapons of all—which we must never forsake—are the values and ideals that America represents to the world.

When we fail to abide by our values, we play right into the hands of al-Qa’ida, which falsely tries to portray us as a people of hypocrisy and decadence.  Conversely, when we uphold these values it sends a message to the people around the world that it is America—not al-Qa’ida—that represents opportunity, dignity, and justice.  In other words, living our values helps keep us safe.

So, as Americans, we stand for human rights.  That is why, in his first days in office, President Obama made it clear that the United States of America does not torture, and it’s why he banned the use of enhanced interrogation techniques, which did not work.  As Americans, we will uphold the rule of law at home, including the privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties of all Americans.  And it’s because of our commitment to the rule of law and to our national security that we will never waver in our conviction that the United States will be more secure the day that the prison at Guantanamo Bay is ultimately closed.

Living our values—and communicating to the world what America represents—also directly undermines al-Qa’ida’s twisted ideology.  When we remember that diversity of faith and background is not a weakness in America but a strength, and when we show that Muslim Americans are part of our American family, we expose al-Qa’ida’s lie that cultures must clash.  When we remember that Islam is part of America, we show that America could never possibly be at war with Islam.

These are our principles, and this is the strategy that has enabled us to put al-Qa’ida under more pressure than at any time since 9/11.  With allies and partners, we have thwarted attacks around the world.  We have disrupted plots here at home, including the plan of Najibullah Zazi, trained by al-Qa’ida to bomb the New York subway.

We have affected al-Qa’ida’s ability to attract new recruits.  We’ve made it harder for them to hide and transfer money, and pushed al-Qa’ida’s finances to its weakest point in years.  Along with our partners, in Pakistan and Yemen, we’ve shown al-Qa’ida that it will enjoy no safe haven, and we have made it harder than ever for them to move, to communicate, to train, and to plot.

Al-Qa’ida’s leadership ranks have been decimated, with more key leaders eliminated in rapid succession than at any time since 9/11.  For example, al-Qa’ida’s third-ranking leader, Sheik Saeed al-Masri—killed.  Ilyas Kashmiri, one of al-Qa’ida’s most dangerous commanders—reportedly killed.  Operatives of AQAP in Yemen, including Ammar al-Wa’ili, Abu Ali al-Harithi, and Ali Saleh Farhan—all killed.  Baitullah Mahsud, the leader of the Pakistani Taliban—killed.  Harun Fazul, the leader of al-Qa’ida in East Africa and the mastermind of the bombings of our embassies in Africa—killed by Somali security forces.

All told, over the past two and half years, virtually every major al-Qa’ida affiliate has lost its key leader or operational commander, and more than half of al-Qa’ida’s top leadership has been eliminated.  Yes, al-Qa’ida is adaptive and resilient and has sought to replace these leaders, but it has been forced to do so with less experienced individuals.  That’s another reason why we and our partners have stepped up our efforts.  Because if we hit al-Qa’ida hard enough and often enough, there will come a time when they simply can no longer replenish their ranks with the skilled leaders they need to sustain their operations.  And that is the direction in which we’re headed today.

Now, with the death of Usama bin Laden, we have struck our biggest blow against al-Qa’ida yet.  We have taken out al-Qa’ida’s founder, an operational commander who continued to direct his followers to attack the United States and, perhaps most significantly, al-Qa’ida’s symbolic figure who has inspired so many others to violence.  In his place, the organization is left with Ayman al-Zawahiri, an aging doctor who lacks bin Laden’s charisma and perhaps the loyalty and respect of many in al-Qa’ida.  Indeed, the fact that it took so many weeks for al-Qa’ida to settle on Zawahiri as its new leader suggests possible divisions and disarray at the highest levels.

Taken together, the progress I’ve described allows us—for the first time—to envision the demise of al-Qa’ida’s core leadership in the coming years.  It will take time, but make no mistake, al-Qa’ida is in its decline.  This is by no means meant to suggest that the serious threat from al-Qa’ida has passed; not at all.  Zawahiri may attempt to demonstrate his leadership, and al-Qa’ida may try to show its relevance, through new attacks.  Lone individuals may seek to avenge bin Laden’s death.  More innocent people may tragically lose their lives.

Nor would the destruction of its leadership mean the destruction of the al-Qa’ida network.  AQAP remains the most operationally active affiliate in the network and poses a direct threat to the United States.  From the territory it controls in Somalia, Al-Shabaab continues to call for strikes against the United States.  As a result, we cannot and we will not let down our guard.  We will continue to pummel al-Qa’ida and its ilk, and we will remain vigilant at home.

Still, as we approach the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, as Americans seek to understand where we stand a decade later, we need look no further than that compound where bin Laden spent his final days.  There he was, holed-up for years, behind high prison-like walls, isolated from the world.  But even he understood the sorry state of his organization and its ideology.

Information seized from that compound reveals bin Laden’s concerns about al-Qa’ida’s long-term viability.  He called for more large-scale attacks against America, but encountered resistance from his followers and he went for years without seeing any spectacular attacks.  He saw his senior leaders being taken down, one by one, and worried about the ability to replace them effectively.

Perhaps most importantly, bin Laden clearly sensed that al-Qa’ida is losing the larger battle for hearts and minds.  He knew that al-Qa’ida’s murder of so many innocent civilians, most of them Muslims, had deeply and perhaps permanently tarnished al-Qa’ida’s image in the world.  He knew that he had failed to portray America as being at war with Islam.  In fact, he worried that our recent focus on al-Qa’ida as our enemy had prevented more Muslims from rallying to his cause, so much so that he even considered changing al-Qa’ida’s name.  We are left with that final image seen around the world—an old terrorist, alone, hunched over in a blanket, flipping through old videos of a man and a movement that history is leaving behind.

This fight is not over.  But guided by the strategy we’re releasing today, we will never waver in our efforts to protect the American people.  We will continue to be clear and precise about our enemy.  We will continue to use every tool at our disposal, and apply them wisely.  We will continue to forge strong partnerships around the world and build a culture of resilience here at home.  And as Americans, we will continue to uphold the ideals and core values that inspire the world, define us as people and help keep us safe.  

President Obama said it best last week—we have put al-Qa’ida on a path to defeat, and we will not relent until the job is done.  Thank you all very much.

Bouchard, Charles (Canada)

26 June 2011 Last updated at 11:26 GMT

Libya conflict: Nato’s man against Gaddafi

By Jonathan Beale
BBC News, Naples

Lt Gen Charles Bouchard: ‘We will see this mission through’

He is the other man at the centre of the war against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. The military commander who ultimately selects and authorises strikes by Nato warplanes.

Outside the alliance few may know his name. But Lt Gen Charlie Bouchard has been charged with directing this complex war, and political leaders in the West are pinning their hopes on him.

We meet the plain-speaking Canadian lieutenant general at Nato’s Joint Command Headquarters on the outskirts of Naples.

The military operation is being run from an unremarkable office block. Men and women, in a surprisingly large variety of camouflaged uniforms and flying suits with the badges of different nations, walk with purpose between rooms closed off for security.

There is a sudden rush of activity as Gen Bouchard enters the building for his first morning meeting.

He asks one of his staff if it’s going to be another busy day. He reassures them: “We’ll get through it.” This is a man who clearly does not stand on ceremony – he quickly places his juniors at ease.

Nor does he much like giving interviews. He has covered his black T-shirt with a camouflaged tunic just for the camera. A helicopter pilot by profession, he has the bearing of a man who would not avoid fighting in the trenches.

His pronunciation of a few words suggest that English might not be his first language – he is French Canadian. But he has spent a lot of his career working with the Americans and they clearly did not mind handing over the mission to him.
‘Rigorous targeting’
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote

My mission is to stop violence against people and I will go all the way down the chain to the man that pulls the trigger”

Gen Bouchard

Gen Bouchard believes the alliance is winning the war against Col Gaddafi.

“We have significantly destroyed his military capacity to the point that he now has no capability to run any offensive,” he says.

That might sound like good news to Nato members, but he adds that the Libyan army “is shielding themselves and using civilians as human shields”.

The general describes a recent video he watched, where a multiple rocket launcher was driven inside a house. On top of that same house a women with a young child was hanging out the washing. He says such examples make life difficult for Nato, but “not impossible”.

With the mantra of this mission to avoid civilian casualties, he says the targeting process is “very rigorous”. They first collect intelligence from a variety of sources. Spy planes fly over the target for imagery. An entire team – including lawyers – then assesses the mission and matches the appropriate weapon with what needs to be hit.

At the end of the process a recommendation is made and Gen Bouchard then makes the final decision. He says the questions he asks himself last are: Is this necessary? What will this do and what will be the impact on the civilian population?
Man said to be friend of Col Gaddafi holds picture of grandchild Libyan government says was killed in the Sorman raid Children’s deaths are regrettable but air strikes are about saving lives, Gen Bouchard says

The alliance believes that it has largely been successful in avoiding civilian casualties. Nato admits that last week a bomb malfunctioned and strayed. But the general is keen to point out that more than 5,000 bombs dropped by Nato warplanes have hit their target.
‘He is the murderer’

I ask about a recent strike on a compound in Sorman to the west of Tripoli in which – the Libyans claim – three children were killed.

He insists that this was clearly a command-and-control centre being used by a senior Gaddafi aide. That aide, he says, would not hesitate to order the deaths of hundreds of civilians. If children were killed – and he seems willing to accept the possibility – he says it’s “very regrettable”. But the attack, he says, should be seen in the context that this was all about saving lives. The bomb, he said, carefully avoided a mosque and hospital nearby.

It was this attack that prompted Col Gaddafi to denounce Nato on the airwaves as murderers and barbarians.

Gen Bouchard replies: “I believe that he is the murderer. He is the man that’s lost the moral authority to command his people.”

Does that make him a legitimate target? The general repeats that his orders are not regime change or to kill a head of state.

“My mission is to stop violence against people and I will go all the way down the chain to the man that pulls the trigger,” he says. He thinks Col Gaddafi is avoiding military instillation and “hiding” in mosques, hospitals and schools.

As to the strains within Nato, Gen Bouchard seems unperturbed. Does he have the military hardware to carry out the job? Every military commander wants more, he says, before adding that he has sufficient capability to carry out the mission. He will let Nato member states worry about resources.

How long will this take? He says that it’s difficult to say, though he does not expect this mission to last years. Calls for a temporary ceasefire, he says, would just give Col Gaddafi’s forces the chance to “rearm and reload”.

Gen Bouchard ends the interview with an emphatic claim: “We will see this mission through.”

He paints a picture of success – a Libya where Nato creates the environment for politics and diplomacy to take root, and with the Libyan people able to decide their own future.

He is clearly relieved when the microphone is switched off. He can get back to the job he wants to do.

Olmert, Livni, and Barak May Face War Crimes Trial in Norway

Olmert, Livni, and Barak May Face War Crimes Trial in Norway

by Yehudah Lev Kay
(Arutz Sheva, 22 April 2009)
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/130976

(IsraelNN.com) Six Norwegian lawyers announced on Tuesday their intent to press charges of war crimes against top Israeli officials, including former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, for their actions in Operation Cast Lead in Gaza. Israel’s operation, which was launched to end Hamas terrorist rocket fire, resulted in the death of 1,300 Gazans and 13 Israelis.

The lawyers plan to file their claim on Wednesday under a Norwegian law which allows courts to hear cases involving war crimes. They will present their case to Norwax’s chief prosecutor and ask for the arrest and extradition of Olmert, former Defense Minister Ehud Barak, former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and seven IDF officers.

 

One of the lawyers, Kjell Brgfjeld, told the French news agency AFP, that the case will be brought on behalf of “three people of Palestinian origin living in Norway and 20 families who lost loved ones or property during the attack.” The case will accuse the Israeli officials of “massive terrorist attacks” which killed civilians. It will also charge Israel with using weapons against civilian targets such as hospitals and medical staff.

 

The lawyers’ statement said regarding the accused Israeli figures, “There can be no doubt that these subjects knew about, ordered or approved the actions in Gaza and that they had considered the consequences of these actions.” While the group admits the case may not reach court, lawyer Harald Stabell claimed, “If we do nothing, it is more likely that a similar attack will happen again in the future.”

 

Ties between Israel and Norway are already strained after Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Store chose not to leave the hall during Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speech at the Durban II UN racism conference in Geneva in which he called Israel a racist state. Store spoke to the plenum immediately after Ahmadinejad, however, and harshly criticized the Iranian leader’s words.

 

Benyamin Ben-Eliezer commanded execution of 250 POWs

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3371879,00.html

Former Meretz leader decries 1967 war crimes

Yossi Sarid tells Egyptian daily that killing of unarmed Egyptian soldiers by Israeli army after 1967 war is war crime

Roee Nahmias

Published: 03.03.07, 14:49 / Israel News

Former Meretz leader Yossi Sarid told the Egyptian daily al-Ahram that the execution of Egyptian captives by Israeli soldiers at the end of the Six Day War in 1967 was a war crime.

Israel 's Channel One television aired a documentary earlier this week in which it was claimed that an elite Israeli army unit commanded by Labor MK Benyamin Ben-Eliezer executed 250 unarmed Egyptian soldiers.

"The killing of Egyptian captives in the Six Day War was a war crime … but the problem in the region is that war crimes are numerous," the newspaper quoted Sarid as saying on Saturday.

The claims made in the documentary received intensive media coverage in Egypt.

Sarid told the newspaper that although he had not seen the documentary he was aware that Israeli soldiers had committed war crimes against Arab soldiers during the Six Day War.

"Punishing those behind those crimes 40 years after the 1967 war is difficult but history will judge those people," Sarid told al-Ahram.

Israeli-Egyptian relations were strained three years ago when the Egyptian Foreign Ministry raised the possibility of demanding that Israel paid compensations for Egypt for the alleged killings.

Mofaz, Shaul (Israel, war crimes

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/795026.html

Fri., December 01, 2006 Kislev 10, 5767 | | Israel Time: 02:20 (EST+6) Ha'aretz

New Zealand cancels Ya'alon warrant after he leaves

By Amos Harel

Former chief of staff Moshe Ya'alon left New Zealand earlier this week, after an arrest warrant was issued against him there as a suspect in the commission of war crimes. After the retired general, who had been on a private visit to New Zealand, departed the country, the warrant was cancelled.

The warrant against Ya'alon had been issued on Monday, following a request by local attorneys on behalf of human rights organizations from New Zealand and other countries.

The warrant was based on the assassination of Hamas leader Salah Shehadeh in the Gaza Strip in July 2002, shortly after Ya'alon took command as chief of staff. The air force bombed a structure in which Shehadeh was hiding, killing 13 civilians, including Shehadeh's wife and daughter.

In the past two years, both former defense minister Shaul Mofaz (also a former COS) and Major General (res.) Doron Almog, former GOC Southern Command, evaded arrest warrants brought against them in Britain, under similar circumstances.

Former commander of the Gaza Division Brigadier General Aviv Kochavi canceled plans to study in Britain out of concerns that human rights groups would seek his arrest too.

A number of human rights organizations and left-wing groups around the world have adopted a policy of trying to bring Israeli officers to trial, and Ya'alon is a prime target. Legal steps have been prepared against Israeli officers in a number of countries, and when the officers visit, the rights groups take action against them.

A Palestinian human rights group in the Gaza Strip that was involved in preparing the report on Shehadeh's assassination announced that on Monday, a district court judge in Auckland issued a warrant for Ya'alon's arrest. New Zealand police, however, sought the advice of the prosecutor, and the following day the state prosecutor instructed the court to rescind the arrest warrant. This was in spite of a previous statement by the judge that the plaintiffs had presented sufficient reasons for the issuing of a warrant against Ya'alon.

Sources in the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem acknowledged the affair and said that the embassy in Australia, which oversees Israel's diplomatic interests in New Zealand, is following developments.

Ya'alon was not available for comment.

Ya’alon, Moshe (Israel, war crimes)

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/795026.html

Fri., December 01, 2006 Kislev 10, 5767 | | Israel Time: 02:20 (EST+6) Ha'aretz

New Zealand cancels Ya'alon warrant after he leaves

By Amos Harel

Former chief of staff Moshe Ya'alon left New Zealand earlier this week, after an arrest warrant was issued against him there as a suspect in the commission of war crimes. After the retired general, who had been on a private visit to New Zealand, departed the country, the warrant was cancelled.

The warrant against Ya'alon had been issued on Monday, following a request by local attorneys on behalf of human rights organizations from New Zealand and other countries.

The warrant was based on the assassination of Hamas leader Salah Shehadeh in the Gaza Strip in July 2002, shortly after Ya'alon took command as chief of staff. The air force bombed a structure in which Shehadeh was hiding, killing 13 civilians, including Shehadeh's wife and daughter.

In the past two years, both former defense minister Shaul Mofaz (also a former COS) and Major General (res.) Doron Almog, former GOC Southern Command, evaded arrest warrants brought against them in Britain, under similar circumstances.

Former commander of the Gaza Division Brigadier General Aviv Kochavi canceled plans to study in Britain out of concerns that human rights groups would seek his arrest too.

A number of human rights organizations and left-wing groups around the world have adopted a policy of trying to bring Israeli officers to trial, and Ya'alon is a prime target. Legal steps have been prepared against Israeli officers in a number of countries, and when the officers visit, the rights groups take action against them.

A Palestinian human rights group in the Gaza Strip that was involved in preparing the report on Shehadeh's assassination announced that on Monday, a district court judge in Auckland issued a warrant for Ya'alon's arrest. New Zealand police, however, sought the advice of the prosecutor, and the following day the state prosecutor instructed the court to rescind the arrest warrant. This was in spite of a previous statement by the judge that the plaintiffs had presented sufficient reasons for the issuing of a warrant against Ya'alon.

Sources in the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem acknowledged the affair and said that the embassy in Australia, which oversees Israel's diplomatic interests in New Zealand, is following developments.

Ya'alon was not available for comment.

Franks, Tommy (Gen.) (war crimes, USA)

Published on Monday, April 28, 2003 by the Washington Times
Iraqis Target Gen. Franks for War Crimes Trial
by Jeffrey T. Kuhner

Iraqi civilians are preparing a complaint to present in court in Belgium accusing allied commander Gen. Tommy Franks and other U.S. military officials of war crimes in Iraq, according to the attorney representing the plaintiffs.

The complaint will state that coalition forces are responsible for the indiscriminate killing of Iraqi civilians, the bombing of a marketplace in Baghdad, the shooting of an ambulance, and failure to prevent the mass looting of hospitals, said Jan Fermon, a Brussels-based lawyer. He is representing about 10 Iraqis who say they were victims of or eyewitnesses to atrocities committed during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

U.S. General Tommy Franks punches the air before making his speech at a town hall-style meeting, also attended by U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, not pictured, at Camp As Sayliyah in Doha, Qatar, Monday, April 28, 2003. (AP Photos/Richard Lewis)
Mr. Fermon said the complaint will ask an investigative magistrate to look into whether indictments should be issued against Gen. Franks. If an indictment is filed against the general and other U.S. officials, they could be convicted and sentenced by a Belgian court.

"Belgium could issue international arrest warrants, but I don't think we will get to that point," Mr. Fermon said.

If arrest warrants were issued, U.S. officials could be arrested on entering Belgium.

The Bush administration has reacted angrily to the complaint. A senior administration official warned that "there will be diplomatic consequences for Belgium" if the complaint is taken up by a court there and Belgian authorities issue indictments against Gen. Franks and other U.S. officials.

"The complaint will be filed stating that unknown American personnel are directly responsible for committing war crimes in Iraq," Mr. Fermon said.

"On some of these questions there is an issue of command responsibility for atrocities committed on the ground, and that responsibility ends with Gen. Franks and those who are under him in the U.S. military line of command," he said.

The administration official said the complaint highlights U.S. concerns that laws regarding war crimes and institutions such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) can be used to initiate politically motivated prosecutions against American officials.

"This is obviously not a political case with the ICC, but it's typical of what we can expect in the future," the official said on the condition of anonymity.

Mr. Fermon said that because under international law President Bush and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell cannot be prosecuted for war crimes while they are in office, the complaint will target Gen. Franks and other U.S. military officials.

"U.S. military officials had the authority but did nothing to stop these war crimes from occurring," Mr. Fermon said. "A military commander is responsible for war crimes even if he did not commit or order them, but also if he fails to take all the necessary steps to prevent the atrocities from happening."

Mr. Fermon said the complaint against U.S. officials is based on a 1993 Belgian law that gives a Belgian court authority to judge war crimes committed by noncitizens anywhere in the world. The plaintiffs sought to file the complaint with the recently inaugurated ICC, but "since the United States did not ratify the treaty to join the institution, we felt compelled to go to a court in Belgium," he said.

He said Belgium's law of "universal jurisdiction" recently allowed indictments to be issued against Rwandan officials for war crimes. He said a similar process is expected to take place against Gen. Franks and other U.S. military officials.

"The most realistic scenario for us is that a serious, independent inquiry is made, and then those U.S. officials with serious responsibilities for the atrocities that were committed in Iraq are subpoenaed to appear in court," he said. "If they do not show up in court, then a court case can proceed with them being absent. If the court finds them guilty, they will be convicted and sentenced."

The filing of the complaint threatens to heighten tensions between Brussels and Washington, which have been strained since Belgium joined France and Germany to lead European opposition to the war in Iraq.

Earlier this month, Mr. Powell said Belgium's law threatened to hamper travel by U.S. officials to Brussels, where NATO headquarters are located.

"It affects the ability of people to travel in Belgium without being subject to this kind of threat. For a place that is an international center, they should be a little bit concerned about this," Mr. Powell said, according to the Associated Press.

Washington's concerns recently prompted Belgian lawmakers to approve amendments to the law, making it harder for cases to be filed against leaders of democratic nations.

Complaints that have been filed against high-ranking leaders such as former President George Bush and Mr. Powell over the 1991 Persian Gulf war are to be sent back to Washington.

Under the amendments, the 10-year-old law only applies to war crimes committed in countries that lack democratic credentials and are unable to provide a fair trial.

But international-law observers say the amendments still leave it up to the Belgian government to decide whether complaints can go forward against U.S. officials.

"These amendments are a positive first step because they help to restore some control over the complaint process by giving the Belgian government the power to shape these kinds of proceedings against the United States, but they are not a panacea," said David Rivkin, a Washington-based lawyer and former official in the Reagan administration and first Bush administration. "They would not shield all possible defendants from these kind of complaints because it is not clear that the Belgian government can always be trusted to do the right thing."

He also said because the amendments have not been tested, it is not clear whether U.S. military officials who are not political leaders, such as Gen. Franks, can be shielded from prosecution.

The senior administration official said the complaint against Gen. Franks was deeply flawed. "There are serious problems with the principle of command responsibility being used in international law as the basis for indictments," the official said. "It goes well beyond what we could reasonably call criminal behavior."

But Mr. Fermon said that the principle of "command responsibility" has been established in international law by the war-crimes tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia at The Hague.

Mr. Fermon said the principle has been used especially effectively in indictments against generals in the former Yugoslavia, who have been charged not "for crimes that were committed or ordered, but for command responsibility."

The most notable case has been that of Croatian Gen. Ante Gotovina, whose indictment on charges of command responsibility over a 1995 military operation has been criticized by many Hague tribunal observers. Gen. Gotovina has refused to hand himself over to the tribunal.

Although the administration official declined to discuss the specifics of the Gotovina case, he said, "But I do think that the indictments issued by the Hague tribunal based on the theory of command responsibility risks establishing the principle in international law," which could be used against U.S. officials.

Mr. Fermon said four Belgian doctors who were working in Iraq during the war came into contact with Iraqi civilians who said they were victims of war crimes by coalition forces. The doctors, who were part of an association called Medicine for the Third World, then told the Iraqis to submit their complaints to a court in Belgium.

Mr. Fermon said that the plaintiffs number about 10 Iraqi civilians, all of whom say they were victims in the war or family members of victims.

"We don't yet know the precise number of plaintiffs because complaints are still coming in," he said.

But the complaint, which Mr. Fermon said will be officially filed in about two weeks, will accuse coalition forces of numerous atrocities in Iraq. Among them:

“The failure to prevent the mass looting of hospitals in Baghdad after the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime.

“Eyewitness testimony of U.S. troops firing upon an ambulance.

“The indiscriminate shooting and wounding its driver by U.S. armored vehicles of civilians in Baghdad.

“The bombing of a marketplace in Baghdad that killed scores of civilians.

? The attack on a civilian bus with an "energy weapon" in the town of al-Hillah, killing at least 10 passengers.

Powell, Colin (war crimes, USA)

Powell Warns Belgium As Iraqi's File War Crimes Charges.


"It's a serious problem," said Powell, adding Washington had deep concerns about Belgium's "universal competence" law, which allows legal proceedings against people accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide regardless of their nationality or location.

Source: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2334.htm

March 19, 2003 (InformationClearingHouse.info & News Agencies) ? Fearing prosecution for war crimes allegedly committed during the 1991 Gulf War, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell warned Belgium that its status as an international hub may be jeopardized.

Seven Iraqi families filed a lawsuit Tuesday, March 18, in Belgium against former U.S. president George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Powell and retired U.S. General Norman Schwarzkop for the bombing of a civilian shelter in Baghdad that killed 403 people on the night of February 12-13, 1991.

"It's a serious problem," said Powell, adding Washington had deep concerns about Belgium's "universal competence" law, which allows legal proceedings against people accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide regardless of their nationality or location.

"The Belgian legislature continues to pass laws and modify them over time which permit these kinds of suits," he said in an interview with reporters from international news agencies at the State Department.

"We have cautioned our Belgian colleagues that they need to be very careful about this kind of effort, this kind of legislation, because it makes it hard for us to go to places, it puts you at such easy risk," Powell said.

"It affects the ability of people to travel in Belgium without being subject to this kind of threat," he said.

"For a place that is an international center they should be a little bit concerned about this."

Heads of state, prime ministers and foreign ministers are immune from the Belgian law while in office, but some 30 current of former political leaders are facing legal action under the legislation, including Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Cuban President Fidel Castro.

Powell claimed that officials at NATO headquarters in Brussels had problems with the law but stopped short of suggesting that the North Atlantic alliance might move its operations elsewhere because of the concerns.

"I know its a matter of concern at NATO headquarters now, an international headquarters sitting there in Belgium where not just U.S. officials but officials from anywhere in the world such as Sharon can be subject to this kind of litigation," he said.

Sharon could face legal action for war crimes by 23 Palestinians who survived a massacre by an Israeli-allied militia at two refugee camps in Beirut in 1982.

"If you show up, the next thing you know you're being … who knows”," Powell said, slapping his hand on a table in a motion that appeared to indicate either being served with a lawsuit or being arrested.

Cheney was U.S. defense secretary at the time of the first Gulf War, while Powell was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Schwarzkopf commander of the Operation Desert Storm.

The families who brought the action are either victims or relatives of victims who died in the attack, according to socialist lawmaker Patrick Moriau, who accompanied the Iraqi plaintiffs when they filed their lawsuit.

Powell said he understood that plans were being made now for another lawsuit to be filed under the same law against President George W. Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld even before the start of a new invasion of Iraq.

"They are getting ready to accuse current President Bush and Don Rumsfeld … for whatever might happen," he said.

Belgium is fiercely opposed to the looming U.S. war on Iraq, and was among three countries, along with Germany and France, which caused a crisis at NATO in February by refusing to back a U.S. request to boost Turkey's defences.

Brussels also this month refused to expel an Iraqi diplomat as requested by the United States.

—————————————————————————————————————————————–

BBC, 26 March 2003

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2886931.stm

Belgium rethinks war crimes law

Belgium's governing parties are scrambling to amend a controversial law which some fear could be used in a war crimes lawsuit against US President George W Bush.

The law allows Belgian courts to pass judgment on charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, regardless of where the alleged acts took place or the nationality of the accused.

Critics have warned that a case against President Bush could be filed under the law, known as universal competence, and Belgium's role as host to international institutions could be threatened.

"I expect there to be, any day, a suit against President Bush in Belgium," said Herman De Croo, president of the lower house of parliament.
I expect there to be, any day, a suit against President Bush
Herman De Croo
Belgian parliament

Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt hosted intense negotiations among political leaders from his coalition to discuss the threat, parliamentary sources said.

US Secretary of State Colin Powell warned last week that Belgium's status as an international hub may be jeopardised by the legislation, which applies to officials once they leave office.

"It's a serious problem," said Mr Powell, after he was named last week in a lawsuit for alleged crimes during the 1991 Gulf War, along with former President George Bush Snr and current Vice President Dick Cheney.

The lawsuit was filed by seven Iraqi families over the bombing of a civilian shelter in Baghdad that killed 403 people.

The bombing of a shelter in Baghdad in 1991 now before the courts
Mr Powell served as the head of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff and Cheney as defence secretary during the 1991 Gulf War.

Some 30 current or former political leaders are facing action under the law, including Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Cuban President Fidel Castro.

Relations are already tense between the United States and Belgium, which has been a fierce critic of the war on Iraq and helped spark an unprecedented crisis at Nato last month.

Brussels regional leader Francois-Xavier de Donnea warned that action taken under the universal competence law risked calling into question the role of city as the seat of international institutions.

Compromise proposal

Discussion of the law comes only a week before Belgium's parliament is due to be dissolved before legislative elections scheduled for 18 May.

According to parliamentary sources, the parties in the ruling coalition are divided over the extent of amendments to the law.

Mr Verhofstadt's Liberals, backed by Flemish-speaking Socialists, have proposed a "diplomatic filter".

This would allow the government to send any cases to the country where the alleged crimes took place, providing it is democratic.

Francophone socialists and ecologists fear that the law would be made toothless if overly radical amendments are allowed.

Mr Powell said last week that Belgium should take the warnings about the law seriously – warnings that are all the more topical after the start of a war which critics claim is illegal.

Short, Michael (war crimes, Serbia)

The commander of NATO's air war against Serbia, Lt. Gen. Michael Short, declared at one point during the bombing: If you wake up in the morning and you have no power to your house and no gas to your stove and the bridge you take to work is down and will be lying in the Danube for the next 20 years, I think you begin to ask, "Hey, Slobo [Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic], what's this all about? How much more of this do we have to withstand?"[Washington Post, May 24, 1999, p.1]

General Short, said the New York Times, "hopes that the distress of the Yugoslav public will undermine support for the authorities in Belgrade."[New York Times, May 13, 1999, p.1]

 From Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower, by William Blum 

 

War criminals’ self-perception

"Asked whether he wants to apologize for the suffering he caused, he looks genuinely confused, has the interpreter repeat the question, and answers “No'. … “I want you to know that everything I did, I did for my country.'"
Journalist Nate Thayer interviewing a dying Pol Pot, 1997 Source: Far Eastern Economic Review (Hong Kong), October 30, 1997, p.15, 20. [thanks to autho William Blum]

"I tell you how I feel. I would like to be remembered as a man who served his country, who served Chile throughout his entire life on this earth. And what he did was always done thinking about the welfare of Chile."
General Augusto Pinochet, under house arrest in England, 1998. Source: Sunday Telegraph (London), July 18, 1999, interview with Pinochet. [thanks to autho William Blum]

 

Nzapali, Sebastien (torture, DR Congo)

Ex-Congo colonel denies torture


Congolese man carries young child
Millions have died in the conflict in DR Congo

A former Congolese colonel on trial in the Netherlands has denied crimes against humanity in DR Congo during the civil war in the 1990s.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3564039.stm
24 March, 2004

Sebastien Nzapali, known as "the king of the beasts", faces charges of torture and rape during the regime of the late dictator Mobutu Sese Seko.

Dutch prosecutors asked for a five-year prison sentence.

This is the first case of war crimes committed in another country to reach a Dutch national court.

Mr Nzapali rejected the allegations against him and called his indictment a "manipulation".

He applied for political asylum in the Netherlands in 1998.

But the Dutch authorities only granted him temporary status because they suspected he was guilty of war crimes.

He was allowed to stay until he was arrested in September 2003 after three Congolese nationals in Congo filed charges against him.

No refugee

Mr Nzapali is being tried under the 1984 UN Convention against Torture.

The BBC's Geraldine Coughlan in The Hague says this puts the Netherlands on a similar legal footing as Belgium.

There, national courts have jurisdiction over war crimes committed abroad.

Prosecutors hope to send out a signal that there is no refuge for war criminals in the Netherlands.

They set up a special genocide and war crimes team five years ago, to seek out suspects hiding in the country and try them under Dutch law.

The court is to give its verdict in two weeks' time.

Cheney, Richard (CAH, 9/11, USA)

Crossing the RubiconSimplifying the case against Dick CheneybyMichael KaneJanuary 18, 2005 (FTW) – In an argument of over 600 pages and 1,000 footnotes,Crossing the Rubicon makes the case for official complicity within the U.S. government and names Dick Cheney as the prime suspect in the crimes of 9/11. Since the publication of this book (to which I had the privilege of contributing a chapter), many people have asked to hear the case against Cheney argued function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }short function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; } sweet.function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }I will make it as short as possible, but it can never be sweet.There are 3 major points made within this book that are crucial to proving Cheneyfunction (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }s guilt. I shall first list them and then go on to prove each point as laid out in Crossing the Rubicon.Means – Dick Cheney and the Secret Service: Dick Cheney was running a completely separate chain of Command function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; } Control via the Secret Service, assuring the paralysis of Air Force response on 9/11. The Secret Service has the technology to see the same radar screens the FAA sees in real time. They also have the legal authority and technological capability to take supreme command in cases of national emergency. Dick Cheney was the acting Commander in Chief on 9/11. (Click here for a summary of these points)Motive – Peak Oil: At some point between 2000 and 2007, world oil production reaches its peak; from that point on, every barrel of oil is going to be harder to find, more expensive to recover, and more valuable to those who recover and control it. Dick Cheney was well aware of the coming Peak Oil crisis at least as early as 1999, and 9/11 provided the pretext for the series of energy wars that Cheney stated, function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }will not end in our lifetime.function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; } (Clickhere for a summary of these points)Opportunity – 9/11 War Games: The Air Force was running multiple war games on the morning of 9/11 simulating hijackings over the continental United States that included (at least) one function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }live-flyfunction (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; } exercise as well as simulations that placed function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }false blipsfunction (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; } on FAA radar screens. These war games eerily mirrored the real events of 9/11 to the point of the Air Force running drills involving hijacked aircraft as the 9/11 plot actually unfolded. The war games function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; } terror drills played a critical role in ensuring no Air Force fighter jocks – who had trained their entire lives for this moment – would be able to prevent the attacks from succeeding. These exercises were under Dick Cheneyfunction (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }s management. (Click here for a summary of these points)Here is the supporting documentation as laid out in Crossing the Rubicon, making a legal case against Dick Cheney for the crimes of 9/11.” MEANS: Dick Cheney and the Secret Service As the 9/11 plot unfolded, it has been reported that Secret Service whisked Dick Cheney into an underground presidential bunker at 9:03. 1 This establishes that the Secret Service was in the loop giving orders by at least 9:03, and almost certainly much earlier, as we will show.Former counter-terrorism advisor Richard Clarke writes in Against All Enemies: function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }Secret Service had a system that allowed them to see what FAAfunction (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }s radar was seeing.function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; } The Kean Commission (also known as the 9/11 Commission) would have us believe that the chain of command on 9/11 was a complex web, but in reality the Secret Service had the authority to communicate presidential and vice presidential orders directly to fighter pilots in the air. 2In Air War Over America, a book commissioned by the Air Force documenting the morning of 9/11, it is stated that the FAA contacted Otis Air Force base informing them Flight 11 was headed to Manhattan and had lost its identification signal by 8:30. 3 This indicates Secret Service was in the loop by the same time, or shortly thereafter, since they are able to see FAA radar screens in real time and FAA is reaching out to the military. There is no question that by 8:45 at the absolute latest, likely much earlier, Secret Service is in the decision-making loop. They were most likely in the loop after 8:15 when flight 11 turned its transponder off.National Special Security EventIt is the Secret Service who has the legal mandate to take supreme command in case of a scheduled major event – or an unplanned major emergency – on American soil; these are designated function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }National Special Security Events.function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; } The Atlanta Olympic Games and the Republican function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; } Democratic National Conventions are notable examples of NSSEfunction (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }s. In preparation, the Secret Service runs training initiatives of simulated attacks and field exercises for such events. 4 The Secret Service works with state and local authorities as well as the military to coordinate security efforts; it has the best communication system of any agency in the country; and its personnel are always present with both the President and Vice President – making it the perfect agency to take supreme command in case of a major emergency on American soil. 5When 9/11 occurred, the legal framework was in place to allow the Secret Service to take supreme command over any and all American agencies, including the Air Force. 6Richard Clarke writes in Against All Enemies: function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }I was amazed at the speed of the decisions coming from Cheney and, through him, from Bush.function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; } 7 This is to be expected. Everything was in place for the Commander in Chief to be calling all the shots as the 9/11 plot unfolded, but Bush was in an elementary school reading about goats with Secret Service agents right beside him.Bushfunction (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }s Secret Service detail was in real-time communication not only with the FAA, but also the PEOC (Presidential Emergency Operations Center), into which Dick Cheney had reportedly been whisked by the Secret Service. While Bush continued his elementary school photo-op after being told, function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }America is under attack,function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; } Ari Fleischer – according to the Washington Times, 10/7/02 – caught the presidentfunction (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }s eye and held up a handwritten sign that said function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }DONfunction (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }T SAY ANYTHING YET.function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; } 8 Bush was intentionally being kept out of the decision-making loop during the critical moments of 9/11. The Vice President has no place in the official military chain of command.9Thus far we have established that:Secret Service was the supreme command on 9/11.Bush was not in the role of Commander in Chief at critical times on 9/11.The acting Commander in Chief as the 9/11 plot unfolded was Dick Cheney.” MOTIVE: Peak OilBy definition, world hydrocarbon (oil and gas) production peaks when half the planetfunction (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }s reserves have been used up. After that point, every barrel of oil will be harder to find, more expensive to obtain, and more valuable to whoever controls it. Many of the worldfunction (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }s foremost experts place that peak between 2000 and 2007.We live in a global economic system based on endless growth, and that growth is only possible with endless hydrocarbons to burn. Demand for oil and gas is increasing at staggering rates; after peak, there will be demand that simply cannot be met, and energy prices will rise inexorably.The resulting economic catastrophe may see oil hit $100 per barrel before the end of this decade. Oil not only keeps us warm and moves our cars, it is used to make all plastics and is, together with natural gas, the most important ingredient keeping modern agriculture afloat. It is a little known fact that for every 1 calorie of food energy produced, 10 calories of hydrocarbons are consumed. 10We eat oil.Without cheap oil, billions of people will freeze or starve and unfortunately, there is no combination of renewable energy sources that can replace oil and gas consumption without massive conservation efforts that are nowhere in sight.Cheney knew about this.There are no national plans for conservation in America. As Dick Cheney has stated, function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }The American way of life is not negotiable.function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; } Over-consumption is as American as apple pie. Many industry experts have been speaking to the reality of Peak Oil for some time. One of those experts – perhaps the most prominent in the world – was in Dick Cheneyfunction (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }s National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG).Just four days after Dick Cheney became Vice President he convened the NEPDG. 11Among the experts whose opinion Cheney paid for (with taxpayer dollars) was Matthew Simmons, one of the most respected energy investment bankers in the world. Simmons has been speaking out about Peak Oil for years, and there is no question that the urgent story of Peak Oil is what he told Cheneyfunction (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }s NEPDG.The content of the NEPDG documentation has been illegally withheld from the American public with a rubber stamp of approval from the Supreme Court. FTW has always contended that the deepest, darkest secrets of 9/11 are in those documents. Thatfunction (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }s why theyfunction (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }ve been guarded so tightly.Cheney knew about Peak Oil in 1999 as CEO of Halliburton, long before was Vice President. A speech he gave at the London Institute of Petroleum demonstrates this clearly. 12As stated in Crossing the Rubicon, function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }By way of confirmation, people in and close to the oil industry are reporting that increased drilling is not resulting as yet in significantly increased supply.function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; } 13A crisis of this magnitude required a crisis plan, something the Neo-Liberals didnfunction (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }t have. The Neo-Conservatives, including Dick Cheney, had such a plan: manufacture a crisis – one that had long been imagined as necessary by elite planners inside the national security state 14- and use it to maintain permanent war to steal the worldfunction (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }s last remaining hydrocarbons and temporarily stave off the Peak Oil crisis.” OPPORTUNITY: 9/11 War Games – a perfect function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }matchfunction (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }On May 8, 2001 – four months prior to 9/11 – the president placed Dick Cheney in charge of function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }[A]ll federal programs dealing with weapons of mass destruction consequence management within the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Justice, and Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other federal agencies?function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; } This included all function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }training and planningfunction (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; } which needed to be function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }seamlessly integrated, harmonious and comprehensivefunction (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; } in order to function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }maximize effectiveness.function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; } This mandate created the Office of National Preparedness in FEMA, overseen by Dick Cheney. 15Dick Cheney was placed directly in charge of managing the seamless integration of all training exercises throughout the entire federal government and all military agencies. On 9/11 Cheney oversaw multiple war games and terror drills, including several exercises of NORAD, the Air Force agency whose mandate is to function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }watch the sky.function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }The evening before September 11th, 2001, the National Security Agency intercepted a communication between Khalid Shaikh Muhammad and the alleged ringleader of the 9/11 attacks, Mohammed Atta. The communication stated, function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }The match is about to begin.function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }Were they function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }matchingfunction (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; } their activities to the war games? Was the attack a rigged function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }matchfunction (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; } between the defenders on one side, and the attackers with their accomplices on the other”The Whitehouse was so infuriated when this communication leaked from the Senate Intelligence Committee that they threatened Senators with polygraphs and office searches for disclosing classified information. This leak struck a nerve within the Whitehouse.We know multiple Air Force war games were running on the morning of 9/11, as documented extensively in the mainstream press. 16 What Crossing the Rubicon has documented conclusively is that there was a live-fly drill taking place on 9/11 titled Vigilant Warrior. Richard Clarke disclosed the name of this drill on page 4 of his book, but it was Major Don Arias of NORAD who confirmed the definition of the title function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }Warriorfunction (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; } to Mike Ruppert via email.Warrior = JCS/HQ NORAD sponsored FTX, or field training exercise (live-fly). 17That means that the Vigilant Warrior drill conducted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff involved at least one real commercial aircraft in the skies, intended to simulate exactly the kind of airliner hijack emergency presented on 9/11. Coincidence”This was further supported by an April 18 2004 USA Today article titled, function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }NORAD had drills of jets as weapons.function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; } The report cited NORAD officials who confirmed live-fly drills were conducted using hijacked airliners originating from the continental United States used as weapons crashing into targets including the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The specific drill USA Today referred to was function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }planned in July [2001] and conducted laterfunction (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; } – likely on 9/11 itself. 18Remember, on 9/11 the Bush administration claimed it had function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }no ideafunction (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; } aircraft would be used as weapons. Then why were they drilling such scenarios before and during 9/11? The Whitehouse dodged this by saying it wasnfunction (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }t aware of these drills but that is a transparent lie. The drills took place in the Whitehouse! 19Secret Service runs simulated attack field exercises – exactly what Vigilant Warrior was. This Joint Chiefs of Staff drill was likely being run through Secret Service lines of communication by a central command under Cheneyfunction (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }s control.20Additional war games on 9/11 included Northern Vigilance, an exercise that pulled Air Force fighters from the east coast of the United States up into Canada and Alaska simulating an attack out of Russia. All of those fighters were rendered useless as the 9/11 plot unfolded – too far away to respond.One of the components of this drill included function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }false blipsfunction (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; } (radar injects simulating aircraft in flight) placed on FAA radar screens. 21 At one point FAA head Jane Garvey said they suspected up to 11 hijackings on 9/11. Was she saying they couldnfunction (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }t determine which were real, which were simulated, and which were live-flymilitary exercises”Regardless, all of this rendered Air Force response on 9/11 useless.In Air War Over America it is documented that General Arnold of NORAD didnfunction (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }t pull out of the war game titled Vigilant Guardian until reports of flight 93 being hijacked were coming in. That was at 9:16, a total of 54 minutes after it was known that flight 11 was a hijacking. 22 What took so long? Were there still function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }false blipsfunction (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; } on FAA radar screens at this time”There were likely false blips on screen even after 9:16. The Kean Commissionfunction (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }s report introduced function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }phantom flight-11function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; } as being reported by the FAA at 9:25 on 9/11. The FAA reported flight 11 was heading to Washington D.C. at that time when in fact it had already struck the World Trade Center. The Kean Commissionfunction (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }s report stated they were function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }unable to locate the source of the mistaken FAA information.function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; } 23function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }Phantom flight-11function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; } was a false blip, but since the war games are classified, specific information on function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }false blipsfunction (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; } and other details canfunction (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }t be reported.Now imagine being an air traffic controller with both real planes and function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }false blipsfunction (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; } simulating hijackings on your screens when suddenly there are real, multiple, hijackings. Where do you send the few Air Force fighters that you have? You canfunction (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }t guess wrong, you donfunction (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }t have enough assets for that. The FAA doesnfunction (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }t even make that decision, the military does. The Kean Commission managed to scapegoat the FAA in their report, but the Air Force itself confirmed the FAA did its job properly on 9/11 in Air War Over America. 24There were more 9/11 war games including Northern Guardian, Northern Denial (recently confirmed by an Assistant Editor at Harperfunction (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }s magazine) and an unnamed National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) drill for a plane crashing into NRO headquarters at precisely the time of an actual crash in New York.Another coincidence”War games, terror drills and exercises are run by the military quite frequently. In this case, they mirrored the real attacks of 9/11 with such shocking congruence as to be beyond the realm of coincidence.This is made clear when we consider the warnings that had flooded U.S. Intelligence prior to 9/11, indicating that terrorists were planning to hijack aircraft and crash them into American targets on the ground during the week of September 9th, 2001.25 With that type of information, who in their right mind would then schedule war games that would leave New York and Washington D.C. completely undefended”Wefunction (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }ve already shown that the man in charge of managing all such programs was Dick Cheney. Among the central decision-makers for the scheduling of so many simultaneous exercises would be Dick Cheney and Ralph Eberhart, head of NORAD.It certainly was a perfect function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }match.function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }The MaestroThe most important revelation made about the 9/11 war games comes again from Major Don Arias of NORAD. With multiple war games running, there had to be someone coordinating them.function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }Yes, there is an exercise maestro,function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; } said Don Arias in a phone interview. 26So who was the maestro”Mike Ruppert called every relevant military and government office looking for an answer to this question and received no response. At the final 9/11 Commission hearing on June 17, 2004, I asked General Ralph Eberhart – the man in charge of NORAD on 9/11 – who was in charge of coordinating the war games that day. His only response was, function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }No comment.function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; } None of the commissioners, including Chairman Kean, could answer this question. 27FTWfunction (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }s research has concluded the maestro was either Dick Cheney, Ralph function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }Edfunction (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; } Eberhart, or both. Whoever the maestro was, he was certainly under Cheneyfunction (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }s management as per the May 2001 presidential mandate.Additionally, Tripod II was a bio-terror exercise being set-up on the west side of lower Manhattan, reportedly scheduled to begin the next day. This exercise was being coordinated with FEMA and the Department of Justice – two of the agencies placed directly under Cheneyfunction (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }s control in May of 2001 by presidential mandate.Another coincidence”There is no question that Cheney would be responsible for managing this exercise. The Tripod II drill became the command function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; } control emergency response center on 9/11. The command center in WTC 7 was reportedly evacuated by 9:30 on 9/11, butTripod II provided a new command center organized just as the original was. 28 How convenient.The Air Force war games ensured the air attack would be successful, and Tripod II assured Cheney would have control of the response to the crisis of his making. Matching the war games with hijackings – or hijacking the war games – was the opportunity for Cheney to help ensure the 9/11 attacks would be successful, justifying what he calls, function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }The war that will not end in our lifetimes.function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; } The function (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }war on terrorfunction (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; } is actually a war for the worldfunction (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }s last remaining hydrocarbon reserves. This energy war is a response to a coming energy crisis that Cheney was well aware of at least as early as 1999.Conclusion Crossing the Rubicon demonstrates much more than is presented here. The book goes into the failures of the 9/11 Commission, 9/11 insider trading, the curtailing of civil liberties, coming economic crisis, biological warfare, the real history of the Osama bin Laden, and many other issues critical to an understanding of todayfunction (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }s historical reality.Crossing the Rubicon also looks into the evolution of PROMIS software, a well-documented artificial intelligence and datamining program whose current descendants played an integral role in the crimes of 9/11. As Dick Cheney was running a separate chain of command via the Secret Service, he also had the capability to intervene in the functions of the FAA through an evolution of PROMIS software developed and sold by Ptech, Inc. – a company funded by Saudi terrorist financier Yassin Al Qadi. Al Qadi claims he met Dick Cheney in Jeddah before he was Vice President, a claim Cheney hasnfunction (c, b) { switch (c) { case “&”: return “&”; case “””: return “"”; case “‘”: return “'”; case “”: return “>”; } return c; }t publicly refuted. FTW will soon be releasing an in-depth report on Ptech and its role in the crimes of 9/11.What we have placed in front of you here is the legal case against Dick Cheney and other persons of interest within the U.S. government. Such evidence should constitute the foundation for articles of impeachment and criminal prosecution against George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and their accomplices.Review the documentation for yourself – purchase Crossing the Rubicon here.1 Crossing the Rubicon, page 4352 Ibid, 428 – 4293 Ibid, 4444 Ibid, 431 – 4325 Ibid, 427 – 4366 Ibid, 4337 Ibid, 5928 Ibid, 4359 http://www.dtic.mil/jcs/core/overview.html10 Ibid, 2411 Ibid, 10912 Ibid, 4713 Ibid, 3814 Ibid, 40, 57515 Rubicon, 33316 Ibid, chapter 19, 333 – 35617 Ibid, 36818 Ibid, 34519 Ibid 34620 Ibid, 43321 Ibid, 33922 Ibid, 44423 Ibid, 40024 Ibid, 44325 Ibid, chapter 13, 225 – 23726 Ibid, 36727 Ibid, 394 – 39928 Ibid, 406

Rumsfeld, Donald (torture, USA)

Rumsfeld may face abuse charges

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6138480.stm
11 November 2006

Donald Rumsfeld, who quit as US defence secretary this week, may face criminal charges in Germany for alleged abuses in Guantanamo Bay and Iraq.

A complaint has been launched by the US-based Center for Constitutional Rights, representing a Saudi detained in Cuba and 11 Iraqis held in Baghdad.

German law allows the pursuit of cases originating anywhere in the world.

The centre made a similar request in 2004 but German prosecutors dropped that case.

Resignation

The Center for Constitutional Rights argues that Mr Rumsfeld was instrumental in abuses committed at Guantanamo Bay and at Abu Ghraib jail in Baghdad.

The lawyer group alleges that Mr Rumsfeld personally approved torture to be used to extract information from the prisoners.

It is also seeking to prosecute US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and former CIA director George Tenet, among others.

The group's complaint will be filed to German federal prosecutors on Tuesday, a spokesperson for the group said.

The prosecutors will have to again decide whether the complaint should be heard.

Mr Rumsfeld resigned on Wednesday following Republican losses to the Democrats in the US mid-term elections.

The Pentagon has not yet commented on the issue.

The US denies any torture has taken place at Guantanamo Bay and has defended its interrogation techniques.

Abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib was brought to world attention after photographs of the incidents were released and published.

Mengistu, Haile Mariam (Ethiopia)

Mengistu Haile Mariam directed the "Red Terror" of the 1970s in Ethipia, but now lives comfortably in exile in Zimbabwe in 2006

Letter From HRW to South African Minister of Foreign Affairs

November 30, 1999

Minister Nkosazana Zuma
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Private Bag X152
Pretoria 0001
South Africa

Via Fax: 27-21-465-6548

Dear Minister Nkosazana Zuma:

On November 24, Human Rights Watch wrote to the South African Minister of Justice, Penuell Mpapa Maduna, urging that South Africa bring Mengistu Haile Mariam to justice for crimes against humanity committed during his rule in Ethiopia. A copy of that letter is attached.

First, Mengistu Haile Mariam is not deserving of the international protection offered to refugees, pursuant to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. As you know, that Convention specifically excludes from protection " any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that …he has committed … a war crime, or a crime against humanity." Similar terms are used in the 1969 OAU Convention governing the specific aspects of refugee problems in Africa. South Africa is a party to both these conventions. Mengistu is accused of both war crimes and crime against humanity. From 1974 to 1991, Mengistu and his subordinates were responsible for atrocities on a massive scale. Tens of thousands of Ethiopians were tortured, murdered or "disappeared." Tens of thousands more were killed as a result of war crimes. Many others, probably well in excess of 100,000, died as a result of forced relocations ordered by Mengistu's regime.

Second, in our letter, we did not recommend that South Africa extradite Mengistu to Ethiopia, because of our concerns regarding his right to a fair trial and the application of the death penalty. We did urge, however, that South Africa investigate Mengistu before its own courts. The South African constitution (article 232) expressly incorporates customary international law. Under customary international law, all countries have a right and a duty to exercise jurisdiction over crimes against humanity and a right to exercise such jurisdiction over torture. We also note that South Africa in 1988 ratified the U.N. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which requires South Africa to prosecute or extradite accused torturers’such as Mengistu?who enter its territory. South Africa has not, however, met its treaty commitment by enacting implementing legislation to incorporate this.

Finally, we believe that it is a disservice to the South African truth and reconciliation process to use that carefully-devised mechanism as a pretext to provide impunity to one of the most blood-stained tyrants of modern times, a man who has never told the truth about his crimes, who has never sought nor received an amnesty and whose government wishes to prosecute him for crimes against humanity. In South Africa, amnesty from prosecution was predicated on truth-telling, which Mengistu has not done. In addition, the route to reconciliation is not something for others to decide but for each country to determine for itself. Ethiopia has clearly decided that reconciliation is best achieved through justice? a fair assessment given the horrendous atrocities committed. South Africa should not seek to impose its model on a fellow country.

South Africa is regarded as a country which places the highest value on human rights. Our organization has had the privilege of working with your government in developing an effective International Criminal Court to bring to justice those accused of the worst atrocities. We believe that South Africa has an opportunity to break the unfortunate cycle of impunity that has developed in many parts of Africa by bringing Mengistu to justice before its courts and providing him with a fair trial.

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Yours truly,

/s/
Peter Takirambudde

Although we have not received a response to our letter, we have read statements in the press, attributed to Foreign ministry spokesman Khangelani Hlongwane, that South Africa will not bring Mengistu to justice because he is a "refugee," because South Africa does not have an extradition treaty with Ethiopia, and because it would be inconsistent to insist on Mengistu's prosecution, given South Africa's reconciliation process. Respectfully, we would like to address each of these assertions.

 

Shea, Jamie (NATO crimes FRY)

At another point, NATO spokesman Jamie Shea declared: "If President Milosevic really wants all of his population to have water and electricity all he has to do is accept NATO's five conditions and we will stop this campaign." Source: NATO press conference, Brussels, May 25, 1999 (cited by William Blum)

NATO CRIMES AGAINST CIVILIANS AND CIVILIAN INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA (April 29, 1999)

For full-text complaint, see: http://www.counterpunch.org/complaint.html

Complaint by

Michael Mandel (Professor)
for
W. Neil Brooks; Judith A. Fudge; H. J. Glasbeek; Reuben A. Hasson (Professors)
Sil Salvaterra; David Jacobs; Brian Shell; Christopher Black; John Philpot, Fred Stasiuk (Barristers and Solicitors)
Peter Rosenthal (Professor, Barrister and Solicitor); Roberto Bergalli (Professor)
Alejandro Teitelbaum; Alvaro Ramirez Gonzalez; Vanessa Ramos; Beinusz Szmukler (American Association of Jurists)

Against

William J. Clinton, Madeleine Albright, William S. Cohen, Tony Blair, Robin Cook, George Robertson, Javier Solana, Jamie Shea, Wesley K. Clark, Harold W. German, Konrad Freytag. D.J.G. Wilby, Fabrizio Maltinti, Giuseppe Marani, Daniel P. Leaf, Jean Chr

D’Alema, Massimo (NATO crimes FRY)

NATO CRIMES AGAINST CIVILIANS AND CIVILIAN INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA (April 29, 1999)

For full-text complaint, see: http://www.counterpunch.org/complaint.html

Complaint by

Michael Mandel (Professor)
for
W. Neil Brooks; Judith A. Fudge; H. J. Glasbeek; Reuben A. Hasson (Professors)
Sil Salvaterra; David Jacobs; Brian Shell; Christopher Black; John Philpot, Fred Stasiuk (Barristers and Solicitors)
Peter Rosenthal (Professor, Barrister and Solicitor); Roberto Bergalli (Professor)
Alejandro Teitelbaum; Alvaro Ramirez Gonzalez; Vanessa Ramos; Beinusz Szmukler (American Association of Jurists)

Against

William J. Clinton, Madeleine Albright, William S. Cohen, Tony Blair, Robin Cook, George Robertson, Javier Solana, Jamie Shea, Wesley K. Clark, Harold W. German, Konrad Freytag. D.J.G. Wilby, Fabrizio Maltinti, Giuseppe Marani, Daniel P. Leaf, Jean Chr