In Re: [Tikun Olam-תקון עולם] UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL ENDORSES GOLDSTONE REPORT


I added many comments to UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL ENDORSES GOLDSTONE REPORT, but the following never appeared in the comment stream.

Nuremberg Law clearly criminalizes the territorial Judaization that Zionists have planned since the 19th century and that they have undertaken since the first war of Zionist aggression in 1947-8 . The Nuremberg indictment of the Nationalist Socialist Government charges (International Military Tribunal, vol. 1, p. 63):

In certain occupied territories purportedly annexed to Germany the defendants methodically and pursuant to plan endeavored to assimilate these territories politically, culturally, socially, and economically into the German Reich. They endeavored to obliterate the former national character of these territories. In pursuance of their plans, the defendants forcibly deported inhabitants who were predominantly non-German and replaced them by thousands of German colonists.

If State of Israel replaces Germany, Zionist State replaces German Reich, and Jewish replaces German, this count applies to Zionist goals from the start of the Zionist movement until the present day.

Certainly the Apartheid Wall is just another means of territorial Judaization, and in fact some of the proceedings of the Nuremberg Tribunal deal specifically with the sort of ghettoization/immurement experienced by Palestinian cities like Qalqilya.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Apartheid Wall is a Nuremberg class crime against humanity.

In response to:

Shirin says:

It is quite well understood that terrorism is defined generally as violence or threat of violence committed against civilians as a means of coercing political change. There is no international agreement on details. As for the official U.S. definition, I do not find it in the least confusing, nor is it surprising that it covers activities in which the U.S. government engages and supports. There is such a thing as terrorism committed by states, and the U.S. uses it quite freely.

I responded:

Joachim Martillo says:

What is violence?

Who is a civilian?

What is coercing?

Can the phraseology distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate political change?

I do not see how to differentiate terrorism under that definition from legitimate resistance under Nuremberg Law.

In addition the proper terminology is not civilian but protected non-combatant, which at least has something like a definition under International Law.

German colonists in the German Occupied Territories of Europe (including the Sudetenland which was annexed under international agreement) were not protected non-combatants. In addition the native German population of the Sudetenland was not a protected non-combatant population by material aid and conspiracy arguments.

The USA has problems with its own definition: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4558777.stm .

The USA has yet to charge Posada Carriles with terrorism even though he blew up a civilian airliner. I think the only count that even mentions terrorism is “conspiracy to obstruct an investigation of terrorist plot.”

The US Treasury has added the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to the list of Specially Designated Terrorist Entities even though on a point by point comparison if the IRG is on the list, there is even more reason to put the IDF on the list.

The misuse of the list of SDTEs by Jewish Zionists in the US Government is to my mind the clearest example of a US CODE: Title 18,2384 violation in the history of the United States. Stuart Levey, Matthew Levitt, Jonathan Schanzer, David S. Cohen have all been carrying out the policy of the American Jewish Committee during their past or ongoing service in the Treasury Department.

http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2009/06/from-epistemic-to-bureacratic.html (The Rachel Ehrenfeld video is priceless.)

http://treasury.gov/press/releases/tg317.htm

In response to:

Shirin says:

Joachim: In the case of the Apartheid Wall, the ICJ advised Israel is under an obligation to make reparation for all damage caused by the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem”;

Shirin: that is old news. What is your point?

Joachim:

Just that the ICJ can impose (or advise penalties) on a whole nation and not just on individual government officials.

Reparations and penalties are two completely different things. I suggest you learn the difference.

In general you do not appear to understand the difference between prosecution, conviction, and punishment for war crimes, and an obligation to compensate (i.e. pay reparations) for damages. They are two entirely different things, and are not interchangeable.

I replied:

Joachim Martillo says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

The Apartheid Ruling of the ICJ imposed a fine. Because it was advisory and not binding the details were left up to the UN, but in those cases where the ICJ is making a binding decision, it can impose fines (either compensatory or exemplary). In theory the ICJ can declare a war to be licit. In theory the ICJ could authorize privateering against one or more nations in a state of belligerency. Belligerency vs. War is a somewhat confusing issue in International Law. During the Korean War, which was an international police action, the USA and the PRC were in a State of Belligerency even though both nations denied that they were at war.

In response to:

Shirin says:

Joachim, I am not impressed by your attempts to bedazzle with your erudition, particularly when it is so obvious that you are blowing smoke, and making extremely unsophisticated arguments that never once address the point. Never play smarter than you are in front of someone who actually might be.

I responded:

Joachim Martillo says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Shirin,

Maybe I am unsophisticated, but the issue does not seem particularly sophisticated to me.

I am merely stating that I was taught that the International Court of Justice has the power to impose punitive reparations.

I looked up some of the latest UN documents I could find on the issue from the UN International Law Commission and from the UN Commission on Human Rights.

These texts seem to agree with me.

You accuse me of blowing smoke. According to the dictionary that means you think I am attempting to deceive you. With regard to what do you think I am deceiving you?

I used to work for Bell Labs. Part of my job was to explain to lawyers various technologies that potentially came under the International Telecommunications Regime with regard to tariffing, common carriage or other issues. Management sent me to take classes so that I could understand the legal language and assist with (i.e. write) the legal documents.

I may have been nothing but a glorified paralegal in a sense, but someone had to do the job, and I had to understand both relevant issues of International Law and of telecommunications technology in detail.

The experience was useful. 25 years later I still do business in consulting for law firms on technology issues.

Anyway, I know two law professors that write on matters of International Law. They are Lama Abu-Odeh at Georgetown and Noah Feldman at Harvard. They do not agree on much.

[I list two papers by them in disagreement in the preface to [wvns] zionist’s plan for world depopulation. Feel free to read them through. They are writing on an interesting topic, and I was amused that Abu-Odeh for the most part agrees with the Henry Kissinger paper. Feldman and former Nuremberg Prosecutor Bejamin Ferencz argue for universal jurisdiction.]

I can ask Abu-Odeh and Feldman whether the International Court for Justice can impose punitive reparations in a binding decision, or you can propose your own alternative experts.

I also have to add that you still have not identified the law school that you attended.

At this point I have to suspect that Shirin is another trained Arab of the Hussein Ibish class.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: