Tuesday, January 13, 2015

Friday, January 2, 2015

Tuesday, December 23, 2014

Cheney at Nuremberg - Count 2



 "...I do think that we have forever laid to rest in the minds of statesmen the vicious assumptions that all war must be regarded as legal and just, and that while the law imposes personal responsibility for starting a street riot, it imposes none for inciting and launching a world war." 
 Robert H. Jackson, former Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and Nuremberg prosecutor
Nuremberg In Retrospect: Legal Answer To International Lawlessness:
Address to the Canadian Bar Association, 1 Sept 1949
(two weeks after Geneva Conventions of 12 August, 1949)

The defendant, with divers other persons, during a period of years preceding 1 January 2008, participated in the planning, preparation, initiation, and waging of a war of aggression, which was in violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances.

Vl. Particulars of the wars planned, prepared, initiated, and waged

(A) The war referred to in the Statement of Offense in this Count Two of the Indictment and the date ofi its initiation is against Iraq, 20 March 2003; 
(B) Reference is hereby made to Count One of the Indictment for the allegations charging that these wars were wars of aggression on the part of the defendants.
(C) Reference is hereby made to the Appendix annexed to this Indictment for a statement of particulars of the charges of violations of international treaties, agreements, and assurances caused by the defendants in the course of planning, preparing, and initiating these wars.

APPENDIX
 

CHARGE: Violation of the UN Charter Article 2 (4)

PARTICULARS: In that the United States did, by force and arms, on March 20, 2003, invade the territory of the Sovereign State of Iraq, without first having attempted to settle its disputes with said Sovereign by pacific means.

CHARGE: Violation of the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, signed at The Hague, October 18, 1907

PARTICULARS: In that the United States did, by force and arms, on March 20, 2003, invade the territory of the Sovereign State of Iraq, without first having attempted to settle its disputes with said Sovereign by pacific means.

CHARGE: Violation of Principle 6(a) of the Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nüremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal, 1950 as formulated by the Report of the International Law Commission covering its Second Session, 5 June - 29 July 1950, Document A/1316, which is based on the Charter of the International Military Tribunal signed at London, 8 August, 1945

PARTICULARS: In that the Defendant with divers other persons, during a period of years preceding 20 March 2003, participated in the planning, preparation, initiation, and waging of a war of aggression, in violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances.

 

Sunday, December 14, 2014

Cheney at Nuremberg - Count 1

The defendant, with divers other persons, during a period of years preceding 1 January, 2008, participated as leader, organizer, instigator, or accomplice in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit, or which involved the commission of, Crimes against Peace, War Crimes, and Crimes against Humanity, as defined in the Charter of this Tribunal, and, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter, is individually responsible for his own acts and for all acts committed by any persons in the execution of such plan or conspiracy. The common plan or conspiracy embraced the commission of Crimes against Peace, in that the defendant planned, prepared, initiated, and waged wars of aggression, which were also wars in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances. In the development and course of the common plan or conspiracy it came to embrace the commission of War Crimes, in that it contemplated, and the defendant determined upon and carried out, ruthless wars against countries and populations, in violation of the rules and customs of war, including as typical and systematic means by which the wars were prosecuted, murder, ill-treatment, and abuse of civilian populations of occupied territories, murder and ill-treatment of prisoners of war, the plunder of public and private property, the indiscriminate destruction of cities, towns, and villages, and devastation not justified by military necessity. The common plan or conspiracy contemplated and came to embrace as typical and systematic means, and the defendant determined upon and committed, Crimes against Humanity, both within the United States and within territories outside the continental USA, including murder, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against civilians, and persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, in execution of the plan for preparing and prosecuting aggressive or illegal wars, many of such acts and persecutions being violations of the domestic laws of the countries where perpetrated.

Saturday, December 13, 2014

Now we need more details

Logs suggest N.L. role in CIA rendition flights

CBC News Posted: Dec 13, 2011 9:26 AM NT Last Updated: Dec 13, 2011 9:15 AM NT


The British human rights group Reprieve says it has new evidence of Newfoundland and Labrador's role in extraordinary rendition flights involving the CIA.

Extraordinary rendition is deemed the abduction and illegal transfer of a person from one nation to another.

Reprieve, based in London, said a chartered plane long suspected of transferring prisoners repeatedly stopped in Gander, central Newfoundland, on its way to Afghanistan from Guantanamo Bay in 2004.

Reprieve said it received the flight logs from U.S. aviation authorities, but their Canadian counterparts won't release the information. Logs obtained from the Federal Aviation Administration show a 2004 flight that began in Washington, D.C., stopped in Guantanamo Bay, then Gander, then Bagram Airfield and eventually Vilnius Lithuania.

Lithuania recently became the focus of a case at the European Human Rights Court after a man alleged he was tortured by the CIA there.

"The evidence suggests that Canada, by virtue of its location, was a very vital, logistical point for the extraordinary renditions program. That is evidenced more and more clearly as time goes on," said Crofton Black, who is with Reprieve.

Black said that's verified by flight logs provided by the FAA, one of the 28 aviation authorities that received an access to information request from Reprieve.

Nav Canada is among the authorities that refused to release flight logs to Reprieve. It is not subject to information laws because it is a private company.

Amnesty International said it took its concerns about Canada’s role in extraordinary renditions to the federal transportation minister four years ago:

"We could not get a clear answer at all, including, whether or not Canada was specifically reviewing these flights with Canada's specific human rights obligations in mind. We couldn't even get confirmation about that," said Alex Neve of Amnesty International.

Under the Obama administration, the CIA promised to shut down overseas detention centres and stop rendition flights, but human rights group say unless countries open up their flight logs, that promise is hard to verify.

***

Article 4

1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture

2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature. 

Canada signed the CAT on August 23, 1985, and ratified it on June 24, 1987. On November 13,1989, Canada made declarations under articles 21 and 22 of the Convention, recognizing the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications (complaints) whereby a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention (article 21), and to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention (article 22). Committee decisions on the merits of communications involving Canada are posted here. For Committee decisions on admissibility, please refer to the United Nations Human Rights Treaty Body database.
http://www.canadianheritage.gc.ca/eng/1356027553583/1356027797651

Thursday, December 11, 2014

American Senate torture report and Canada's laws

ARTICLE  7
Crimes against humanity

  • 1. For the purpose of this Statute, “crime against humanity” means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
    • (a) murder;
    • (b) extermination;
    • (c) enslavement;
    • (d) deportation or forcible transfer of population;
    • (e) imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
    • (f) torture;
    • (g) rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 39/46 of 10 December 1984
entry into force 26 June 1987, in accordance with article 27 (1)

***
PART I

Article 1
1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

Article 2
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Canada23 Aug 1985 24 Jun 1987 

Monday, December 1, 2014