i try my hand
i try my hand in sculpture
i take a lump of clay
i turn it into something
it stands all by it self
a monument to culture
i stand beside myself
and still im next to nothing
My all-time favorite band a prophecy in lyrics,i was frantically listening to it in the 80’s and i still do but i just realized how much ahead of our SimpleMinds they were.We are just Tragic Figures.And our Republic is a Savage one.
Uploader's description:
Published on Apr 23, 2012 by journeymanpictures
Divided Libya awaits election results amid ongoing violence
To see more go to http://www.youtube.com/user/journeymanpictures
Follow us on Facebook (http://goo.gl/YRw42) or Twitter (http://www.twitter.com/journeymanvod)
Gaddafi may be gone but Libya is now a country in chaos. Rebel groups are flush with weapons and taking the law into their own hands, persecuting those thought to have been allied to Gaddafi’s regime.
Libya’s power vacuum has been filled by heavily armed rebels who still control much of the war-torn nation. Images of the sprawling refugee camps reveal the extent of the country’s destroyed infrastructure. Mohammed Swehli, a commander of one of the major Misratan Rebel Brigades, denies the widespread allegations of torture and abuse. “They’re not bandits, they’re not militia groups”, he says of the rebels. But video after video has emerged of the torture of perceived Gaddafi loyalists, most of them far too gruesome to broadcast. In some cases the brutal treatment appears to be based solely on the colour of the victim’s skin. This report gained rare access to the prisons where thousands are being held indefinitely without charge. One former prisoner shows pictures of his injuries. “This is when they beat me with electric cables. They called me slave”, he says. With upcoming elections and new fears over a split between the country’s east and west, what does the future hold for post-revolution Libya?
A Film By SBS
Distributed By Journeyman Pictures
April 2012
This interview appears in the October 29, 2004 issue of Executive Intelligence Review. And was sourced from http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2004/interviews/3142veintitres.html
LAROUCHE TO ARGENTINE JOURNALIST:
Fight the IMF for Americas To Survive
The following is the full text of Lyndon LaRouche’s telephone interview on Oct. 12, 2004 with Romina Manguel of Veintitres magazine, of Argentina. Clips from an earlier interview (see EIR, Oct. 22, 2004) she had done with LaRouche were used in a movie documentary, “Debt,” directed by the well-known Argentine television personality and journalist Jorge Lanata. “Debt” was released on Oct. 7, 2004, generating great interest in LaRouche in Argentina.
Q: Your statements in the documentary had a big impact, and many people have asked: “Who is this personality?” Can you tell us who you are?
LaRouche: I have been a Presidential candidate for the United States, and I’m now a political figure of the United States. I’m a prominent international economist, quite successful in long-term forecasting, pretty much over the last 40 years. And I’m something of a political figure internationally.
Q: Why are you interested in the international credit institutions? Since when? And why do those institutions have a particular interest in the Third World nations that suffer from them?
LaRouche: Essentially you are dealing with the same phenomenon that gave us Hitler and others between 1922 and 1945. It’s a group of international financier circles, largely family circles on the Venetian fondo model. And these circles control most of the banking interests of Europe, and related interests, and also have spread, of course, into the Americas. These people actually are imperialist in their mentality.
Go back to the period between, say, 1000 A.D. and the 15th Century Renaissance, you will find that these Venetian families set up what is called an ultramontane system of banking, such as the Lombard banking system, which collapsed first in the Dark Ages of the 14th Century, but came back and had been responsible for the religious wars of 1511-1648 in Europe, and were the basis for the establishment of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal system, to which the United States was opposed.
So even though the United States is corrupted by this, the United States at its foundation was the creation of a republic to establish independence of these kinds of systems, plus the old Hapsburg system. And in the Americas, in countries like Argentina, especially after the period of the Lincoln victory in the Civil War in the United States, these countries became more and more republics modeled consciously upon the American System of political economy.
This is true in Mexico, in what became the process of the PRI [the Revolutionary Institutional Party]. It’s true in Argentina. It came later, a tendency in this direction, in Brazil. It was also in Peru—a tendency in this direction. So, in the Americas, especially as consolidated under President Franklin Roosevelt, there was a sense of a system of republics based upon the model of the United States, and based on the idea of John Quincy Adams’ drafting of the Monroe Doctrine. That is, a system of independent republics, cooperating with each other, in a mutual pact, like the Rio Pact that Franklin Roosevelt negotiated.
So what you have here, with respect to a country like Argentina, you have what is considered historically a treasonous faction in the United States, these kinds of financier interests, who are out to destroy the system of the Americas—which is not the British capitalist system; it’s the American System. And you find in the constitution, and in the traditions of Argentina—although there are other traditions there too—you find that tradition. You find that in Mexico, in Franklin Roosevelt’s relationship to the government of Mexico, the Cárdenas government. And you find it in Peru. You find the aspiration in the Americas for this kind of a system of republics.
And so the issue here is: You now have the international banking interests, the liberal bankers, which include New York bankers, who are part of this Venetian tradition. And these are the guys that gave us fascism between the Versailles Treaty and the end of World War II. These guys were never rooted out; they still exist inside the United States in a very powerful faction. They are a more powerful faction in Europe than they are in the United States. And we’ve come to a financial crisis, which is, their system is in crisis. And now they are back to the same business of trying to eliminate the sovereign nation-state, to loot the world, and all kinds of nasty things.
Q: Why did this subject interest you? How did you become interested in it and have this position, and involve yourself in a subject which, for many U.S. politicians, is an alien one, or which is only on the agenda before elections?
LaRouche: Oh, I came back from World War II, from service overseas, and I had gone overseas as a man in the footsteps of Franklin Roosevelt. That is, he was my President, and he had saved the United States. He was leading in saving the world from what was spreading across Europe: fascism. When I came back to the United States, in 1946, from overseas service, I saw a real right-wing turn in the United States, back towards precisely what we fought against in fascism.
As I came to know later in my study of this question, that on the day that Franklin Roosevelt died, under his successor, Harry Truman, the people who had created Hitler and people like that in Europe, the people behind Hitler, the bankers behind Hitler, the financier oligarchy behind Hitler, were back in power. They had actually owned the Nazi system. Some Nazis had been hung, or were being hung or whatnot, but they were back in power, with their money. They’re still back in power.
What the problem is, is that the United States has been betrayed from within, by the influence of this kind of force. Eisenhower was a patriot, Truman was not. Jack Kennedy had question marks, but he did some good things. Johnson was essentially a patriot, but a frightened one after Kennedy’s assassination. Nixon was evil, pure evil. He belonged to them. Carter was controlled by these people, although he didn’t know it—the Trilateral Commission was a part of this. Reagan was a mixed bag. Reagan, on the one side, was like me—actually, ten years older than I am—like me, he was in the Roosevelt tradition, but he was brought over to this crazy liberal system. And then you had Bush. The first Bush was a part of the system. Clinton was a different case, and this Bush is a tool of the worst of this system.
So, I’ve simply been reacting as a patriot of my country to what I know to be my tradition, and against the resurgence of what we fought in World War II, which is now back again, and is trying to take over the world.
Q: Do you think that the average U.S. politician is aware of the costs to these countries of paying the debt? Do they know what the social cost is, of having to pay the debt, or are they not aware of it?
LaRouche: Most of the politicians in the United States and in Europe today are little men. They are not really qualified as leaders, patriotic leaders, of countries. They’re not all bad people, but they’re little men, and they tend to be opportunist in going along with what they believe they can succeed in doing for their benefit, to their own advantage, or for the advantage of their own circles. They have very little imagination, that is, political imagination. They are not great statesmen, like Solon of Athens. They’re not great statesmen like Franklin Roosevelt or de Gaulle, for example, as an example of someone in Europe of the same type.
We don’t have great men. Not great men in the sense of tyrants, but great men who have a vision, who are like Jeanne d’Arc in the case of France, who gave her life for a principle, and had a vision of the importance of this principle, as all great European and other leaders have had: the vision, a patriotic vision of what they must do for their nation, and also for the benefit of civilization in general. We do not have such leaders in the United States today. In that sense, I’m unique, at least at this time.
Q: The International Monetary Fund continuously terrorizes countries, talking about what the consequences would be of not paying the debt. Do you believe, in the realm of fiction, that it is possible for a country to not pay the debt to the Fund, and survive?
LaRouche: It’s not possible to pay the debt to the IMF, and survive as nation-states. That’s the situation today. The IMF has—since 1971 in particular, when Nixon took over and destroyed the fixed-exchange system, and that was at the Azores conference in 1972—set up this floating exchange-rate system. The IMF has become a tool of a predatory force of international financier circles. Now, we’ve got to the point that if we try to collect the debts, as they are now, civilization will vanish from the planet for some time to come. That is, it’s not possible to collect the debts, and for civilization to survive.
That’s what you see in Argentina. It’s not possible for Argentina to pay this debt and for Argentina to survive physically as a nation and people. This is true also for the entirety of South and Central America. Very soon, sooner or later, but in the near future, every country in South and Central America will be destroyed, if the IMF has its way. And there will be genocide caused by this kind of thing. The kind of genocide that will remind historians of what happened in Europe during the 14th century.
So therefore, the choice is, either you meet the obligations imposed by the IMF and thus give up civilization, accept global genocide; or you say, no: The highest law of society is the maintenance of the welfare of the people, and the posterity and the sovereignty of nations, which is the principle of our Constitution here in the United States.
So, if we defend our Constitution, we say, the international financier circles, with their predatory power, have committed a crime against humanity. We are not going to honor the criminals. We will do justice, but we will do justice by starting by defending the sovereignty, the general welfare, and the posterity of our people.
Q: In the film documentary, you compared the dynamics of those institutions with the Gestapo, and that had an enormous impact. Can you amplify your reasoning on this a bit?
LaRouche: My point is, if you want to conquer a people—for example, you had the German people in a fit of fright and foolishness, endorse the adoption of a dictator, Adolf Hitler. Now, to prevent the German people from coming back, voluntarily, out from under the kind of dictatorship and schemes that Adolf Hitler represented, you create an instrument of terror, a police-state instrument of the type that John Ashcroft, the present Attorney General of the United States, would like to impose—is attempting to impose on the people. What you have, therefore, is the same thing. To impose the kind of dictatorial rule, by a predatory force, the international financial cartel, upon people, it is necessary to destroy the democratic rights of people, and to crush all of those people—either by exemplary actions of cruelty, or simply by eliminating persons who will stand up and fight.
Q: In light of this panorama, do you think that the Argentine leaders, the Argentine Presidents, who do not rebel against the policies of the Fund, are accomplices?
LaRouche: Not necessarily. They are in effect accomplices, but they’re like the appointed leaders who are under the control of an overreaching power of compradores. They’re the outside compradores typified by the Bank of Santander, which is a predatory instrument of Europe in South and Central America. And now, in a sense, with the IMF backing, and with backing from European governments and from the U.S. government, they have imposed a cruel dictatorship upon Argentina.
The question is, how do we fight? If a nation is not capable in and of itself to resist, then those of us, among all nations who understand justice, must intervene and must act, and establish our solidarity with the people of republics, to jointly work to defend them.
For example, what I’m doing in the United States: I know that there’s no force on this planet today which could stop the worst depression the world has known, at least modern civilization, unless we save the Presidency of the United States. We have a candidate, John Kerry, who is not the best choice in the world, but is the only choice available to us, to defeat what George Bush and Cheney represent. My belief is that there’s no one on the planet who has the combination of power and knowledge to defeat this monster, except the United States. Therefore, my view is that the United States must provide a leadership, like Franklin Roosevelt did during the 1930s and the war, a leadership which can reach out to other countries, which do not have the strength to defend themselves independently, and we must have solidarity with these countries and work together with them, to enable them to secure their rights.
Q: How responsible are the men in those institutions regarding what happens? I’m speaking of [former IMF Managing Director Michel] Camdessus, at one point, of [IMF First Deputy Managing Director] Anne Krueger. Or are they victims of the system in which they are immersed? How much responsibility can be ascribed to each one?
LaRouche: They’re just as responsible as the Nazis, as the Nazi concentration camp administrator. They may not intend to kill people themselves, but they’re employed in a position where that’s the duty that’s mandated on them, and they will do it. Some will resist, some will not do it. But they will do it. They are, in a sense, they’re like pimps. They make their living that way. They make their career that way, and they may say they regret what they do, but they say: “I have to do it. I’m just doing my job.” Like a mafia boss.
Q: Over the course of your most active political career. what do you think most irritated the credit institutions of the U.S. political Establishment?
LaRouche: I think two things are most notable. Number one, my exposure, my successful forecast, of what happened in 1971-72. The system was coming down, and the system did come down. The monetary system collapsed under Nixon, as I had forecast was probable.
Secondly, in the latter part of the 1970s, running for President and especially during the first term of President Reagan’s term of office, I launched the initiation of what became known as the Strategic Defense Initiative. At that time, there were leading political figures in Argentina, who were associated with me in defending that proposal, in the beginning of the 1980s; they didn’t get much of a reward from the United States for that, though.
But these two things were considered a great threat to the policies of the oligarchy.
For example, it was not only the U.S. oligarchy. One has to remember that in 1986, when a section of the U.S. government deployed over 400 people in an operation against me and my associates, and had a force deployed to assassinate me, officially, where they had a force ready to come in where I was, and shoot everybody on sight, in the place where I was living, to get me. The Soviet government of Gorbachov was one of those who screamed loudest for my elimination, at the same time that the faction behind George Bush, Sr. was also pushing for my elimination. It was George Bush, Sr., of course, and his crowd, which put me into prison.
So I think it was these two things, my persistent action on this as typified by my intervention in 1976 on behalf of the just new world economic order, as in the Non-Aligned nations project in Ceylon, in Sri Lanka, at that time. That was number one. That was almost a death sentence for me. Number two, the SDI. That became almost a death sentence for me. These two things I have never been forgiven for by the oligarchy.
Q: Finally, what is your answer to your critics who, in an effort to discredit you, brand you a fanatic, delirious, a man of impossible ideas?
LaRouche: I don’t pay much attention to these characters. Most of them are not honest, that is, they’re not sincere. It’s simply, they’re repeating what somebody tells them to say. Most of this comes through the corrupt press, which is controlled by what are in fact the fascists of today—though some of the leading press has come over, in a sense, on my side, against the worst abuses. For example, the New York Times sometimes acts on issues in a way which I find favorable, and other people like that. In general, I give no credit to any of this stuff, because I know what it is, I know where it comes from. And frankly, I despise people who do that. They’re beneath my dignity.
Q: I thank you greatly for this interview, which is going to be featured prominently in the magazine. The people of the LaRouche Youth also participated in this report.
LaRouche: It’s fun, isn’t it? Life is fun. It’s a dangerous fight, but it’s fun. [read more]
PRLog (Press Release) – Apr 23, 2012 –
Why is the 2006 poisoning death of Alexander Litvinenko still unsolved today? Media business analyst William Dunkerley looks into that question in a timely analysis just published. Dunkerley is the author of the book, The Phony Litvinenko Murder. He has followed the Litvinenko case closely since 2007. That’s when he was asked by the organizers of the World Congress of the International Federation of Journalists to study and analyze the media coverage surrounding Litvinenko’s poisoning and death. Dunkerley’s book reflects his findings, and further offers his analysis of subsequent developments in the case.
Litvinenko was a British citizen and fugitive from Russia, his original homeland. News of his death became a top world headline in late 2006. Dunkerley says the popular storyline was, “Former KGB Spy Litvinenko was murdered by Russian president Vladimir Putin who poisoned him with radioactive polonium.” But Dunkerley presents evidence that there are virtually no facts to back up that media theme.
Dunkerley also takes a critical look at the role of the London Coroner’s office in the Litvinenko case. Now five and half years after Litvinenko’s death, Dunkerley asks, “Why didn’t the Coroner wrap up the case years ago?” In his new report, Dunkerley describes a litany of contributing problems. He concludes that the case has been irreparably damaged by the Coroner’s handling of it and by what he calls the prevailing non-fact-based media coverage.
The new report can be seen here: http://www.omnicompress.com/plmblog/archives/2012/04/entry_9.htm
William Dunkerley is a media business analyst and consultant based in New Britain, CT. Dunkerley works extensively in Russia and other post-communist countries, and has advised governments on matters of press freedom and media sector development. He has written and spoken widely about media issues related to Russia.
September 6, 2012
This report is based on interviews conducted in Libya with 14 former detainees, most of whom belonged to an armed Islamist group that had worked to overthrow Gaddafi for 20 years. Many members of the group, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), joined the NATO-backed anti-Gaddafi rebels in the 2011 conflict. Some of those who were rendered and allegedly tortured in US custody now hold key leadership and political positions in the country.
From a Friend on Twitter. Please click on the link and sign the petition.Together we can bring a change in this world
Sponsored by: Citizens  for Human Rights, Justice and Peace
Due to the professional misconduct of Luis Moreno-Ocampo, former ICC Prosecutor, Saif Al Islam Qadhafi has been the victim of a mass media campaign to implicate his guilt for crimes that he has not committed and for which there is no substantiating evidence.
In violation of International Law and Rules Of Ethical And Professional Conduct, Luis Moreno Ocampo gave numerous, widely publicized interviews where he cited crimes allegedly committed by Saif Al Islam Qadhafi, thus denying him his fundamental legal right of Presumption Of Innocence
Saif Qadhafi has been languishing in a makeshift prison in Zintan the last 8 months. He has been denied his fundamental human rights to legal council. The ICC defence team appointed by the International Criminal Court were illegally detained in Libya. The ICC issued an arrest warrant in June, 2011 accusing Saif of involment in the killing of protestors. It took 3 days to issue the arrest warrant without an investigation on the ground in Libya. The ICC issued an arrest warrant in June, 2011 accusing Saif of involment in the killing of protestors. It took 3 days to issue the arrest warrant without an investigation on the ground in Libya. Politically Motivated or could Saif be guilty? Having followed the conflict from the onset, this was an armed aggression. Tragically Saif is innocent and if we allow a mock trial in Libya he will be executed and the truth will never be told.
The following is an article posted on Libya360 website. Our petition as well as many of the articles are from this website which has an extensive library of articles on the current situation in Libya. There are also appeals of other political prisoners who are facing mock trials in Libya.
ICC Defense Respond To The Libyan Authorities’ Demand To Hold Saif Gaddafi’s Trial In Libya
Posted on August 25, 2012 by Alexandra Valiente
We Demand Saif Al Islam Gaddafi’s Immediate Transfer To The ICC – Revised Appeal With PDF Document
Urgent Action: Viva Libya Saif Al Islam Gaddafi File And Appeal
Alexandra Valiente
Viva Libya!
Libya 360°
On July 31, 2012, Mr. Xavier-Jean Keïta, Principal Counsel and Ms. Melinda Taylor, Counsel, submitted an application to the court requesting that Libya’s request to try Saif Al Islam Gaddafi in Libya be denied.
The 92 page document opened with unsigned statements from Saif Al Islam Gaddafi, where he outlined the gravity of his plight.
In an earlier article I described the process and challenges of the case, emphasizing the following critical facts:
Regarding political prisoners, international laws are clear and concise. There is no margin for error or misinterpretation regarding their enactment.
When the International Criminal Court demands the issuance of arrest warrants (based on a UNSC referral), it has a responsibility to ensure that the individuals subject to the warrant are lawfully protected from harm, granted a fair trial and not executed. This is especially critical in Libya, where the present regime is incapable of conducting “fair trials” and the country, mired in a state of utter chaos, is subject to militia rule.
The ICC have actively participated in violating international laws and norms with regards to the protection and treatment of political prisoners.
The former ICC prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, stepped beyond professional and ethical boundaries when he entered into secret negotiations with the NTC and the Zintan militia, while denying he was trying to influence the outcome of Saif’s case.
While he (Luis Moreno-Ocampo) was engaged in these secret meetings, it was known that Saif Gaddafi was subjected to torture, denied medical treatment for his injuries, denied legal counsel of his choice, denied access to family and friends he trusts who could act on his behalf to appoint legal counsel.
In addition to the above, “Ocampo “gathered evidence of fault” against Saif Gaddafi in a few weeks without going to the place where the alleged crimes were committed. In other cases investigations lasted for years (7 years in the case of Cote d’Ivoire). Now Ocampo’s statements for the media fully coincide with the position of the Libyan authorities.” (Alexander Mezyaev)
Today the ICC published a response from Mr. Xavier-Jean Keïta and Ms. Melinda Taylor that was submitted on August 21, 2012:
SITUATION IN LIBYA IN THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTOR v. SAIF AL-ISLAM GADDAFI AND ABDULLAH AL-SENUSSI
“1. On 30 July 2012, Counsel for Libya filed a request for a Status Conference, and an extension of time to file their reply concerning the admissibility challenge. Counsel for Libya sought to justify the latter by reference, inter alia, to the inability of Counsel to obtain instructions during the period of Ramadan, and pending the appointment of a new Minister of Justice, and Prosecutor-General.
2. In a request to reply to the Defence and Registry submissions on this point, Counsel for Libya once again averred to the Chamber that Counsel for Libya were unable to obtain instructions in relation to either the allegations concerning the alleged misconduct of the Defence, or the admissibility of the case. Counsel for Libya also heavily implied that there was a lacuna concerning the existence of a prosecution team, with the authority to instruct Counsel on such matters.
3. On 9 August 2012, the Pre-Trial Chamber suspended the deadline concerning Libya’s reply to the admissibility challenge due to “the alleged inability of counsel to obtain instructions in the absence of a Minister of Justice”.
3. On 9 August 2012, the Pre-Trial Chamber suspended the deadline concerning Libya’s reply to the admissibility challenge due to “the alleged inability of counsel to obtain instructions in the absence of a Minister of Justice”.
4. On 14 August 2012, the Defence for Mr. Saif Al Islam Gaddafi respectfully requested the Pre-Trial Chamber to shorten the deadline for the reply, or in the alternative, suspend the operation of Article 95 (the Request). The Defence referred to the fact that there was no du jure or de facto impediment as concerns the ability of either the incumbent Minister of Justice, or Prosecutor-General to instruct Counsel for Libya in relation to the reply to the admissibility challenge.
5. On 18 August 2012, at a time when Counsel for Libya had informed the Pre-Trial Chamber that there were no government officials capable of providing instructions concerning the case, an official for the Prosecutor-General provided clear and detailed information concerning the intention of the Libyan authorities regarding the progress of the domestic proceedings, and the admissibility challenge before the ICC.
6. For example, the official addressed the following issues, which are directly relevant to a putative reply to the admissibility challenge:”
They cite media reports that Saif Al Islam Gaddafi is to be tried in Libya in September.
“1 ICC-01/11-01/11-192
2 ICC-01/11-01/11-199, 9 August 2012, at paras. 4 and 13.
3 See for example, para 8.
4 ICC-01/11-01/11-200.
5 ICC-01/11-01/11-201.
6 N. Meo, ‘ Libya: Saif Gaddafi to go on trial next month’ Telegraph 18 August 2012, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/9484459/Libya-Saif-Gaddafi-to-go-ontrial-next-month.html”
They asked the court to consider the fact that the Libyan authorities will not provide accurate information regarding:
1- The location of the trial.
2- The penalty that will be imposed.
3- The fact that Saif has no legal counsel in Libya and has not been granted the right to choose who will represent him.
4- The unwillingness to protect witnesses who would like to testify on behalf of Saif.
5- The exact date that Libya is seeking to set for the commencement of the trial.
6- The specific items that the “prosecution” intends to submit as evidence against Saif.
The defense challenged Libya’s intentions when they announced to the media that, “now Libya’s prosecutor has made clear that the ICC will play no role in the trial. The court’s relationship with Libya was poisoned after four of its personnel were detained for alleged spying during a visit to Saif.” (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/9484459/Libya-Saif-Gaddafi-to-go-ontrial-next-month.html)
They accused the Libyan authorities of mounting “a public campaign to preemptively justify their non-cooperation with any future admissibility ruling from the ICC. In particular, the Interior Minister, who continues to exercise his functions and authority to speak on behalf of the Libyan government, has resorted to litigation by journalism rather than judiciary, using the press as a platform to publicly malign the credibility of the ICC Defence (and by association, the ICC).”
They highlighted the irregularities in the statements and actions of the Libyan authorities:
“Whereas two weeks ago, the Libyan authorities asserted that they had concerns that the Defence wished to assassinate or poison Mr. Gaddafi with the interpreter’s swatch watch, the Interior Minister now alleges that the Defence attempted to assist Mr. Gaddafi escape by providing him with “drawings showing places and times in Zintan”. The Interior Minister further asserted that the ICC has not “ denied the spying claims”.”
They addressed the credibility of all statements made by the Libyan authorities and reminded the court of their obligation under international law, not to permit the continued abuse of court proceedings.
“It would be an abuse of the court proceedings to use the admissibility reply as a vehicle for mounting a distinct admissibility challenge based on new circumstances, proposals, and allegations. To do so would be contrary to the clear Statutory injunction that States may only challenge admissibility once, as of right. It would also unfairly deprive the Defence, Prosecution, and OPCV of the ability to be heard on these new details and proposals.
The law requires certainty and specificity, and Mr. Gaddafi has a right to know the forum of his trial as soon as possible. Accordingly, in the absence of any legal or practical impediment to the immediate filing of a reply to the admissibility challenge, the Defence respectfully reiterates its request for the Honourable Pre-Trial Chamber to:
i. order Counsel for Libya to either file their reply to the admissibility challenge within four days of the issuance of the decision on this request, or waive their right to file such a reply; or,
ii. in the alternative, declare that Article 95 is no longer in effect during the current suspension of the admissibility proceedings, and order the Libyan authorities to immediately surrender Mr. Gaddafi to the custody of the ICC.“
The Libyan authorities are attempting to confuse and deceive the public when Taha Naser Bara announces that Saif’s trial will be held in Zintan in September, while Deputy Prime Minister Mustafa Abushagur continues to deny that there are any definitive plans at this time regarding Saif’s trial.
It is my hope that the ICC will act on this request and have Saif transferred to an ICC facility where he is safe from the murderous reach of the current regime and has a chance of receiving a “fair trial” where his defense can present evidence of his innocence and witnesses can testify on his behalf without fear of imprisonment or assassination.
The ICC is obligated under its own laws to protect those under its jurisdiction from irreparable harm.
As the ICC issued the arrest warrant for Saif Al Islam, (Refer to the original arrest warrant; Jurisdiction – F – 1 – 50) he is under their jurisdiction and is entitled to their intervention and the full protection of all of his human rights.
I encourage activists and human rights advocates to support Saif by demanding his immediate release, even if it is into the hands of the ICC.
If he is to survive he must be removed from Libya promptly.
Urgent Action: Viva Libya Saif Al Islam Gaddafi File And Appeal
ICC Officials, “There Is No Chance Saif Al Islam Gaddafi Will Have A Fair Trial”.
Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi’s Right To Fair Trial In Libya ‘Irrevocably Prejudiced’
© Copyright 2012 by Libya 360° and Viva Libya!. Republication is strictly forbidden. You are however permitted, encouraged and welcome to post the link to the original. On behalf of Libya’s political prisoners, we thank you for your support and cooperation.
Official figures show that EU countries sold Greece over €1 billion of arms at the same time as negotiating its first bail-out back in 2010.
France was by far the biggest seller, with a €794 million aircraft deal, according to recently-released European Council data on arms licences granted by member states. It also sold €58 million of missiles and €19 million of electronics used for aircraft countermeasures and target acquisition.
Pro-austerity advocates the Netherlands and Germany together sold almost €90 million of mostly electronics and ground vehicles. Italy sold €52 million of rifles and aircraft parts and Spain sold €33 million of military-grade chemicals.
Greece is currently trying to shave every possible centime off its budget, but it still remains one of the biggest arms spenders in the region due to a perceived threat from Turkey.
The then Greek deputy defence minister, Panos Beglitis, in 2010 told Reuters that fellow member states did not put pressure on Athens to buy the arms in order to get the bail-out. “This [large scale arms purchases] has always been the case with these countries. It is not because of the crisis, there is no link,” he said.
But an aide to the then Greek leader, George Papandreou, who asked to remain anonymous, told the news agency: “No one is saying ‘Buy our warships or we won’t bail you out.’ But the clear implication is that they will be more supportive if we do.”
Looking to the Middle East, the 2010 figures tell a tale of EU countries arming their Sunni Muslim allies against Shia Muslim enemies Iran and Syria.
EU countries granted €2.5 billion of licences for exports to Saudi Arabia, €1.5 billion for the United Arab Emirates and €1.2 billion for Oman. Sales to smaller Sunni-controlled regimes – Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar and Yemen – added up to €1.1 billion.
They sold almost nothing to Iran and Syria (barring half-a-million-worth of Greek aircraft parts for Syria’s President Assad, who buys mostly from Russia).
The arms sales overlap with EU Arab Spring politics.
EU countries over the past year gave Sunni dictatorships plenty of leeway on repression while condemning human rights abuses in, for instance, Iran, or strategically less important countries in north Africa.
Arms for autocrats
Some EU diplomats are worried Algeria could see unrest in May elections, where Islamist political groups will challenge septuagenerian autocrat Abdelaziz Bouteflika.
If Algeria becomes the next Libya or Syria, there will be no shortage of EU-made weapons on the ground.
Total arms licences in 2010 were €933 million, including €584 million of British and Italian aircraft; €94 million of Italian and French electronic countermeasure equipment; €40 million of French naval vessels; and €24 million of Bulgarian ammunition.
EU licences for pre-Arab-Spring dictators in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia came to €531 million.
The weapons are still sloshing around in Libya, which on Tuesday (6 March) split in two when leaders in the oil-rich east claimed autonomy.
The figures also show how much wiggle-room there is in the EU arms ban on China, which goes back to the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre.
Despite the embargo, it granted almost €218 million of licences in 2010.
The lion’s share came from France and the UK for aircarft and ground vehicle parts, electronic equipment, missiles and over €13 million of: “Chemical or biological toxic agents, ‘riot control agents,’ radioactive materials.”
Clear risk
The EU figures are collected on the basis of a 2008 Code of Conduct, which says member states should not sell to places if there is “a ‘clear risk’ that the weapons will be used for internal repression” or “could provoke or prolong armed conflict.”
The reporting system is known for its sloppiness.
In 2009, for instance, Italian firm Beretta sold €8 million of guns to Libya. But the shipment was incorrectly registered as being of Maltese origin and worth €80 million, after a shipping firm, W.J. Parnis England, made a typo which went unnoticed for two years.
“If this is what is happening in the official and legal arms trade, I can only imagine what is happening in the illegal arms trade,” Francesco Vignarca, the director of Italian arms control NGO, Rete Disarmo, told EUobserver at the time.Source
My neuroimmune journey: PANS, ME, and POTS
Dealing with the endless "oughts" of parenting and autism.
Take Control of Your Own Health!
CRIME DOES NOT PAY... PLUS, THE BUTLER DID IT! AND REMEMBER: WHAT DOESN'T KILL YOU, WILL -MOST LIKELY- TRY AGAIN... AND DON'T FORGET: TODAY IS A GOOD DAY FOR SOMEONE ELSE TO DIE.
A constant reminder that life would be so much better without the BBC's TV Licence Gestapo
Welcome to June Rousso's Blog !
glintiss.co.uk
Word a Day
ΓΙΝΕ Ο ΕΠΟΜΕΝΟΣ ΚΡΙΚΟΣ ΣΤΟ ΔΙΚΤΥΟ.
"Tails" from pets searching for their forever home.
A great WordPress.com site
Alea Jacta Est
The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change
Putting the boss in quack.
Remapping My World
ΑΡΘΡΑ ΨΥΧΟΛΟΓΙΑΣ
Biting the hand of Project Fear
Quit Smoking & Take Your Freedom Back!
Στό μυαλό είναι ο στόχος το νού σου
1rex22
Insomniacs II 