Did you know that Israel attacked Sudan in January?

Did you know that Israel attacked Sudan in January?

Probably not. After all, if democracy is the best political system money can buy, then the corporate media is the best media the Israel Lobby can buy too...

There were some reports and rumors before, but now the quasi official New York Times confirms the story.

So after bombing Syria Israel also bombed Sudan. Makes me wonder which country is next. Iran probably.

Whatever maybe the case, it is quite clear that Israel does not give a damn about international law or public opinion. Clearly, Israel's rulers realize that keeping up a facade of compliance with civilized norms of international relations has become utterly futile. Following years of criminal behavior which peaked with the building of the Wall and the rampage in Gaza, Israel has totally given up on trying to maintain an appearance of respectability. That, in itself, is an admission of defeat, a sign of weakness. Long gone is the myth of Leon Uris' like heroic Zionists who came to "make a desert green" ("an land without people for a people without land"). The Israelis now openly behave like baseball bat wielding skinheads who "proudly" display their hatred and violence. Their rabid racism and contempt for the rest of mankind is now fully in the open, "out of the closet" so to speak. Good.

Combine that with the Rahm Obama Presidency and the prognosis is clear: much, much worse to come. Soon.

ICC overlooks Israel's war crimes allegation

Press TV reports: The International Criminal Court prosecutor says it lacks jurisdiction to investigate possible Israeli war crimes committed in Gaza.

The ICC prosecutor said in a statement Wednesday that the "court's jurisdiction is limited to war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of genocide committed on the territory of, or by a national of, a state party while Israel is not a member state.

Tel Aviv launched Operation Cast Lead on December 27 to put an end to rocket attacks against southern Israeli towns. At least 1,015 Palestinians have died during the offensive, while some 4,700 others are reported wounded.

Hamas, the democratically-elected ruler of the coastal sliver, demands a cessation of an 18-month Israeli blockade on the Gaza Strip before its fighters suspend the rocket attacks.

The huge number of civilian casualties in the densely-populated coastal sliver has provoked widespread outcries around the globe among many nations as well as their leaders.

A fierce controversy has also broken out over the alleged use of white phosphorus, also known by the military as WP or Willie Pete, by the Israeli army in Gaza.

Human Rights Watch says its researchers have observed the use of WP -- which causes horrific burns, severe injuries or death when it comes in contact with human skin -- by the Israeli military in the Gaza Strip.

The legality of the toxic chemical agent is a matter of debate, with many groups recognizing it as an illegal weapon, while international law allows its usage solely for smoke-screening.

The US intelligence has classified WP as a "chemical weapon."

There are also reports that Tel Aviv has used depleted uranium against civilians in Gaza.

The International body in The Hague made the remarks Wednesday after a Palestinian rights group called on the ICC to investigate Israel for committing war crimes in Gaza, Reuters reported.

"In Gaza at present, the ICC lacks such jurisdiction," Nicola Fletcher, a spokeswoman for the ICC prosecutor, said adding that the ICC can investigate Israel's war crimes only if Tel Aviv voluntarily accepted the court's jurisdiction, or if it is referred to the court by the United Nations Security Council.

Israel and the United States are not among the 108 signatories of the Rome Statute creating the Hague-based court in 2000 to investigate and prosecute war crimes.
-------
Note: in yet another glorious landmark of its equally glorious history the "invincible Tsahal" has now killed more than 1000 people in Gaza.

The Saker

Top Israeli official openly calls for war crimes in the next Israeli war against Lebanon

Al-Manar TV reports:

Israeli reserve Brigadier General Gabriel Siboni called for striking Lebanon’s infrastructure in case of a new war. In an article published on the Israeli Institute for National Security Studies’ internet site, Siboni said that the “current predicament facing Israel involves two major challenges. The first is how to prevent being dragged into an ongoing dynamic of attrition on the northern border similar to what in recent years developed along the border with the Gaza Strip. The second is determining the IDF’s response to a large scale conflict both in the north and in the Gaza Strip.” Siboni analyzed that both challenges can be overcome by adopting the principle of a “disproportionate strike against the enemy’s weak points as a primary war effort, and operations to disable the enemy’s missile launching capabilities as a secondary war effort.”

PUNISHMENT IS TO DESTROY LITERALLY EVERYTHING

The Israeli Brigadier General writes that with an outbreak of hostilities, “the IDF will need to act immediately, decisively, and with force that is disproportionate to the enemy's actions and the threat it poses. Such a response aims at inflicting damage and meting out punishment to an extent that will demand long and expensive reconstruction processes.

The strike must be carried out as quickly as possible, and must prioritize damaging assets over seeking out each and every launcher. Punishment must be aimed at decision makers and the power elite. In Syria, punishment should clearly be aimed at the Syrian military, the Syrian regime, and the Syrian state structure. In Lebanon, attacks should both aim at Hezbollah’s military capabilities and should target economic interests and the centers of civilian power that support the organization. Moreover, the closer the relationship between Hezbollah and the Lebanese government, the more the elements of the Lebanese state infrastructure should be targeted.”

Siboni believes that such a response will create a lasting memory among Syrian and Lebanese decision makers, “thereby increasing Israeli deterrence and reducing the likelihood of hostilities against Israel for an extended period. At the same time, it will force Syria, Hezbollah, and Lebanon to commit to lengthy and resource-intensive reconstruction programs.”

RESPONSE SHOULD BE DISPROPORTIONATE

He stressed Israel does not have to be dragged into a war of attrition with Hezbollah. “Israel’s test will be the intensity and quality of its response to incidents on the Lebanese border or terrorist attacks involving Hezbollah in the north or Hamas in the south. In such cases, Israel again will not be able to limit its response to actions whose severity is seemingly proportionate to an isolated incident. Rather, it will have to respond disproportionately in order to make it abundantly clear that the State of Israel will accept no attempt to disrupt the calm currently prevailing along its borders. Israel must be prepared for deterioration and escalation, as well as for a full scale confrontation. Such preparedness is obligatory in order to prevent long term attrition. The Israeli home front must be prepared to be fired upon, possibly with even heavy fire for an extended period, based on the understanding that the IDF is working to reduce the period of fighting to a minimum and to create an effective balance of deterrence.”

“By instilling proper expectations of the IDF response among the civilian population, Israel will be able to improve its readiness and the resilience of its citizens. Still, the IDF’s primary goal must nonetheless be to attain a ceasefire under conditions that will increase Israel's long term deterrence, prevent a war of attrition, and leave the enemy floundering in expensive, long term processes of reconstruction,” Siboni concluded.

Gabriel Siboni joined the research team of the Institute for National Security Studies in early 2006.

He served as a fighter and commander in the Golani Brigade and completed his service as the brigade’s reconnaissance unit commander. Within the scope of his reserve service, he served as senior staff officer of the Golani Brigade, deputy commander of the logistics unit, and chief of staff of an armored division in the north.

In addition to his work at INSS, Siboni is also a consultant in a wide range of fields, including operational systems and military technology.
-------
Commentary: I have bolded out the key word "disproportionate" in the article above because it is the single most important one in terms of the laws of war, international humanitarian law and international and customary law. Indeed, the concept of *proportionality* is the linchpin of all the legal instruments applicable in international conflicts. Basically, international law recognizes that conflicts will occur and that any nation has the right to self-defense. Likewise, international law accept the fact that modern warfare will always result in what is politely called 'collateral damage', i.e.: damage to non combattants and the civil society. However, international law clearly and unequivocally states that the response to an aggression and the means used to repel an agressor must be *proportional* to the military necessity. This means that two things are specifically considered as war crimes:

a) using excessive force
b) deliberately engaging non-military targets

History has shown that Israel, truly the world's Ueber-terrorist, couldn't care less about *any* laws, nevermind the laws of war and that its armed forces have always considered the commission of war crimes not only as a tactic, but in fact as a strategy to achieve its objectives. What is unique in the case of Siboni is the arrogant, blatant, openness with which such terrorist methods are advocated. This is hardly a reflection of some newly aquiered spirit of "glasnost" among the racist thugs who run the Israeli high command, rather it is a reflection of the degree of inpunity which the USA has granted its Israeli allies (or, better said, *bosses*).

We see yet again the proof of a basic postulate: racism and terrorism *always* go hand in hand. There is no such thing as a non-terrorist racist ideology or, even less so, a non-terrorist racist state. Israel will remain a terrorist state as long as it clings to its Zionist racist ideology and it would be foolish in the extreme to expect it to abide by any kind of law (international, human rights, etc.) under these circumstances.

Why Hamas should release Gilad Shalit

It will be two years this June since the daring capture of the Israeli corporal Gilad Shalit by the military wing of Hamas, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, in the course of an attack on an IDF position near Gaza. Following this embarrassing incident, the Israelis tried everything they could, including the mass murder of civilians in Gaza, to force Hamas to release Shalit, but to no avail. Numerous diplomatic efforts were also made by various parties to secure Shalit's release, but they all failed due to the Israeli refusal to release the many hundreds of Palestinian hostages it holds under a variety of pretexts.

The Palestinians have presented the capture of Shalit as a "desperate tactic to obtain the release of kidnapped Palestinian political prisoners". If that was the goal, then this tactic as clearly failed, at least so far. Could it eventually succeed? Possibly. Does that mean that Hamas should stand firm and refuse to release Shalit? I don't think so. In fact, I think that the continuous detention of Shalit is fundamentally wrong.

What is at stake here goes far beyond the individual drama of Shalit and the many hundreds of Palestinians kidnapped by Israel which, while certainly important, do not somehow void all the political and moral issues underlying Hamas' actions.

If there is something like an "Israeli contribution to international law" it is definitely the constant, systematic and self-righteous disregard for any and all forms of international law by all the Israeli governments since the founding of the Israeli state to today. From the massive use of torture at home and abroad (remember the infamous Khiam prison in South Lebanon?), to the bombing of civilians in Palestine and Lebanon, from the regular violations of international borders, to the murder of UN officials, from the deliberate creation of pollution during the 2006 war to the killing of opponents without trial (aka "targeted assassination") - the Israelis have put themselves far above and beyond any pretense of legality a long time ago. In fact, it is painfully clear that there is *nothing* the Israelis would refrain from doing because it is illegal; that's simply not how they think. It would be extremely naive to expect a criminal and outlaw Apartheid state to behave according to any internationally accepted norms of civilized behavior. So much is clear.

But what about Hamas?

For all the propagandistic labelling of Hamas as a 'terrorist group' Hamas is, in reality, a national liberation movement with a rather checkered track with regards to international law. While there is no doubt whatsoever that the use of violence against an occupying force is legal, Hamas did conduct and support operations which were clearly aimed at Israeli civilians. While it is true that in a militarized society like the Israeli one the concept of 'civilian' is somewhat ambiguous, and while it is true that any use of violent force has the potential of harming non-combatants, the laws of war have a requirement of proportionality which states that a) non-combatants cannot be deliberately targeted and b) that the likely harm to civilians resulting from a military operation must be justified by the importance of the target. Yes, that is vague and open to interpretation, but no matter how hard I try I cannot see that bombing of buses filled with civilians can be justified under such principles. Let's face it: Hamas did commit terrorist acts in the past.

That being said, Hamas' violations of the laws of war pale in comparison with the numerous atrocities of the Israelis, so I am not putting too much blame on Hamas for its 'less than pristine' track record in this matter. The case of Gilad Shalit is, I submit, fundamentally different.

Unlike Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, Shalit cannot be considered a POW, at least not under international law since the conflict between Israel and Hamas is does not fall under the category of "international war". Still, the Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention does apply to any conflit situation, as does international humanitarian and human rights law. But that is really a rather legalistic way of looking at things. Common sense tell us something even more obvious: Shalit is detained as a hostage to obtain a release of other hostages. While an exchange of prisoners between Hezbollah (acting as the de-facto army of Lebanon) and Israel could be viewed as an exchange of POWs and while a detention of IDF POWs by Hezbollah until such an exchange takes places could be considered as legal or, at least, semi-legal, no such arguments can be made in the case of Shalit.

In fact, the lawyers of B'Tselem have clearly indicated that the holding of Shalit is a war crime and that he should be released unconditionally and immediately (btw - if one considers that the laws of war do not apply in the case of Shalit, then the applicable law is human rights law which also prohibits the taking of hostages).

In the case of Shalit, Hamas is committing a clear violation of international law which cannot be justified by the importance of a military objective (the release of Palestinian hostages is not, by definition, a military objective). Furthermore, in deliberately disregarding international law Hamas will find itself in the bad company of Israel and the USA whose defiance of civilized norms of behavior will become less unique, less abject, at least in the eyes of a public opinion still dependent on the corporate media to make up its mind. I know, I know, Israel holds many hundreds of hostages and Hamas holds just one. But who outside the Middle-East can even name a single Palestinian hostage? The "hostage Shalit" becomes a flag, a cause and, most importantly, a veil behind which the Israelis can conceal the large number of hostages they hold. Thus, holding Shalit is not only illegal, it is also counter-productive. Even worse, I believe that it is also immoral.

No matter what the Israelis do to the Palestinians I cannot accept a logic which makes one man pay for the sins of others. Before being an IDF corporal and a bargaining chip, Shalit is first and foremost a man. Unless somebody is incurably racist, anyone would have to recognize that this fundamental quality of being our fellow human being is what should matter most to us when thinking about his plight and the plight of his family. Of course, Shalit is no 'more human' than the hundreds of Palestinians taken hostage by the Israelis, they too deserve as much sympathy from us as he does. But neither is Shalit 'less human' or somehow less deserving of sympathy and compassion.

How can the two year detention of one human being be justified by the lofty goal of releasing other human beings?! Is this a case of the end justifies the means? Those who would answer 'yes' should remember that history shows that the means always end up defining the end.

Hamas appears to be unable to secure the freedom of many Palestinian hostages, but it can secure the freedom of one Jewish young man. Does it matter to this religious organization whether the freed person is Jewish or Palestinian? Does it matter that by releasing Shalit Hamas would loose a powerful bargaining chip?

Since Hamas is a religious organization, please allow me to make a purely religious case for the release of Shalit.

God does not command us to achieve outcomes, not in the Torah, not in the Bible and not in the Qur'an. There is no commandment beginning with the words "Thou shalt achieve...". God's commandments are inevitably focused on our *individual actions* rather then on the possible results of these actions. Simply put, God tells us "do the right thing no matter what and let Me worry about the outcome". It would be outright bizarre for a religious person to say that "if we release Shalit our fellow Palestinians will never be released". What about God's all-mighty Hand?! If God wants to liberate a hostage, any hostage, He can just make it happen and he does not need any 'help' from well-intentioned human beings who, to make things only worse, actually commit a grievous sin with the hope that the end result will somehow justify it. No, God commands us to live piously, to equally love one another regardless of faith or ethnicity and to refrain from committing evil acts. Any truly religious person should accept that God can do anything and that all that is asked of us is to accept His will, even if it is difficult to understand.

It is our task to free those we can free, and it's God's task to free those whom we cannot free. At least that is what a religious person or organization should accept as self-evident. Since Hamas cannot free the Palestinian hostages, it should free the one person it can set free: Shalit.

The holding of Shalit is thus illegal, counter-productive and immoral, in particular from a religious point of view. While I can understand what Hamas hoped to achieve when it captured Shalit two years ago, I see no possibly further justification for his detention: keeping him any longer is needlessly cruel and a disgrace for those who hold him.

Gilad Shalit should therefore be released immediately and unconditionally.

The Real Story Behind Kosovo's Independence

Lessons in the Bi-Partisanship of Empire

By JEREMY SCAHILL

News Flash: The Bush administration acknowledges there is a such thing as international law.

But, predictably, it is not being invoked to address the US prison camps at Guantanamo, the wide use of torture, the invasion and occupation of sovereign countries, the extraordinary rendition program. No, it is being thrown out forcefully as a condemnation of the Serbian government in the wake of Thursday's attack by protesters on the US embassy in Belgrade following the Bush administration's swift recognition of the declaration of independence by the southern Serbian province of Kosovo. Some 1,000 protesters broke away from a largely non-violent mass demonstration in downtown Belgrade and targeted the embassy. Some protesters actually made it into the compound, setting a fire and tearing down the American flag.

"I'm outraged by the mob attack against the U.S. embassy in Belgrade," fumed Zalmay Khalilzad,the US Ambassador to the United Nations. "The embassy is sovereign US territory. The government of Serbia has a responsibility under international law to protect diplomatic facilities, particularly embassies." His comments were echoed by a virtual who's who of the Bill Clinton administration. People like Jamie Rubin, then-Secretary of State Madeiline Albright's deputy, one of the main architects of US policy toward Serbia. "It is sovereign territory of the United States under international law," Rubin declared. "For Serbia to allow these protesters to break windows, break into the American Embassy, is a pretty dramatic sign." Hillary Clinton, whose husband orchestrated and ran the 78-day NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999, said, "I would be moving very aggressively to hold the Serbian government responsible with their security forces to protect our embassy. Under international law they should be doing that."

There are two major issues here. One is the situation in Kosovo itself (which we'll get to in a moment), but the other is the attack on the US embassy. Yes, the Serbian government had an obligation to prevent the embassy from being torched and ransacked. If there was complicity by the Serbian police or authorities in allowing it to be attacked, that is a serious issue. But the US has little moral authority not just in invoking international law (which it only does when it benefits Washington's agenda) but in invoking international law when speaking about attacks on embassies in Belgrade.

Perhaps the greatest crime against any embassy in the history of Yugoslavia was committed not by evil Serb protesters, but by the United States military.

On May 7, 1999, at the height of the 78 day US-led NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, the US bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, killing three Chinese citizens, two of them journalists, and wounding 20 others. The Clinton administration later said that the bombing was the result of faulty maps provided by the CIA (Sound familiar?). Beijing rejected that explanation and alleged it was deliberate. Eventually, under strong pressure from China, the US apologized and paid $28 million in compensation to the victims' families. If the US was serious about international law and the protection of embassies, those responsible for that bombing would have been tried at the Hague along with other alleged war criminals. But "war criminal" is a designation for the losers of US-fueled wars, not bombers sent by Washington to drop humanitarian munitions on "sovereign territory."

Beyond the obvious hypocrisy of the US condemnations of Serbia and the sudden admission that international law exists, the Kosovo story is an important one in the context of the current election campaign in the United States. Perhaps more than any other international conflict, Yugoslavia was the defining foreign policy of President Bill Clinton's time in power. Under his rule, the nation of Yugoslavia was destroyed, dismantled and chopped into ethnically pure para-states. President Bush's immediate recognition of Kosovo as an independent nation was the icing on the cake of destruction of Yugoslavia and one which was enthusiastically embraced by Hillary Clinton. "I've supported the independence of Kosovo because I think it is imperative that in the heart of Europe we continue to promote independence and democracy," Clinton said at the recent Democratic debate in Austin, Texas.

A few days before the attack on the US embassy in Belgrade, Clinton released a Molotov cocktail statement praising the declaration of independence. In it, she referred to Kosovo by the Albanian "Kosova" and said independence "will allow the people of Kosova to finally live in their own democratic state. It will allow Kosova and Serbia to finally put a difficult chapter in their history behind them and to move forward." She added, "I want to underscore the need to avoid any violence or provocations in the days and weeks ahead." As seasoned observers of Serbian politics know, there were few things the US could have done to add fuel to the rage in Serbia over the declaration of independence -- "provocations" if you will -- than to have a political leader named Clinton issue a statement praising independence and using the Albanian name for Kosovo.

On the campaign trail, the Clinton camp has held up Kosovo as a successful model for how to conduct US foreign policy and Clinton criticized Bush for taking "so long for us to reach this historic juncture."

Perhaps a little of that history is in order. If Kosovo is her idea of solid US foreign policy, it speaks volumes to what kind of president she would be. The reality is that there are striking similarities between the Clinton approach to Kosovo and the Bush approach to Iraq.

On March 24, 1999, President Bill Clinton began an 11-week bombing campaign against Yugoslavia. Like Bush with Iraq, Clinton had no UN mandate (he used NATO) and his so-called "diplomacy" to avert the possibility of bombing leading up to the attacks was insincere and a set-up from the jump. Just like Bush with Iraq.

A month before the bombing began, the Clinton administration issued an ultimatum to President Slobodan Milosevic, which he had to either accept unconditionally or face bombing. Known as the Rambouillet accord, it was a document that no sovereign country would have accepted. It contained a provision that would have guaranteed US and NATO forces "free and unrestricted passage and unimpeded access throughout" all of Yugoslavia, not just Kosovo. It also sought to immunize those occupation forces "from any form of arrest, investigation, or detention by the authorities in [Yugoslavia]," as well as grant the occupiers "the use of airports, roads, rails and ports without payment." Additionally, Milosevic was told he would have to "grant all telecommunications services, including broadcast services, needed for the Operation, as determined by NATO." Similar to Bush's Iraq plan years later, Rambouillet mandated that the economy of Kosovo "shall function in accordance with free market principles."

What Milosevic was actually asked to sign is never discussed. That it would have effectively meant the end of the sovereignty of the nation was a non-story. The dominant narrative for the past nine years, repeated this week by William Cohen, Clinton's defense secretary at the time of the bombing, is this: "We tried to achieve a peaceful resolution of what was taking place in Kosovo. And Slobodan Milosevic refused." Refused peace? More like he unwisely refused one of Don Corleone's famous offers. Washington knew he would reject it, but had to give the appearance of diplomacy for international "legitimacy."

So the humanitarian bombs rained down on Serbia. Among the missions: the bombing of the studios of Radio Television Serbia where an airstrike killed 16 media workers; the cluster bombing of a Nis marketplace, shredding human beings into meat; the deliberate targeting of a civilian passenger train; the use of depleted uranium munitions; and the targeting of petrochemical plants, causing toxic chemical waste to pour into the Danube River. Also, the bombing of Albanian refugees, ostensibly the people being protected by the U.S.

Similar to Bush's allegations about Iraqi WMDs in the lead up to the US invasion, in 1999 Clinton administration officials also delivered stunning allegations about the level of brutality present in Kosovo as part of the propaganda campaign. "We've now seen about 100,000 military-aged men missing ....They may have been murdered," Cohen said five weeks into the bombing. He said that up to 4,600 Kosovo men had been executed, adding, "I suspect it's far higher than that." Those numbers were flat out false. Eventually the estimates were scaled back dramatically, as Justin Raimondo pointed out recently in his column on Antiwar.com, from 100,000 to 50,000 to 10,000 and "at that point the War Party stopped talking numbers altogether and just celebrated the glorious victory of 'humanitarian intervention.'" As it turned out "there was no 'genocide' -- the International Tribunal itself reported that just over 2,000 bodies were recovered from postwar Kosovo, including Serbs, Roma, and Kosovars, all victims of the vicious civil war in which we intervened on the side of the latter. The whole fantastic story of another 'holocaust' in the middle of Europe was a fraud," according to Raimondo.

Following the NATO invasion of Kosovo in June of 1999, the US and its allies stood by as the Albanian mafia and gangs of criminals and paramilitaries spread out across the province and systematically cleansed Kosovo of hundreds of thousands of Serbs, Romas and other ethnic minorities. They burned down houses, businesses and churches and implemented a shocking campaign to forcibly expel non-Albanians from the province. Meanwhile, the US worked closely with the Kosovo Liberation Army and backed the rise of war criminals to the highest levels of power in Kosovo. Today, Kosovo has become a hub for human trafficking, organized crime and narcosmuggling. In short, it is a mafia state. Is this the "democracy" Hillary Clinton speaks of "promoting" in "the heart" of Europe?

It didn't take long for the US to begin construction of a massive US military base, Camp Bondsteel, which conveniently is located in an area of tremendous geopolitical interest to Washington. (Among its most bizarre facilities, Bondsteel now offers classes at the Laura Bush education center, as well as massages from Thai women and all the multinational junk food you could (n)ever wish for). In November 2005, Alvaro Gil-Robles, the human rights envoy of the Council of Europe, described Bondsteel as a "smaller version of Guantanamo." Oh, and Bondsteel was constructed by former Halliburton subsidiary KBR.

Herein lies an interesting point. The Serbian government is largely oriented toward Europe, not the US. The country's prime minister, Vojislav Kostunica, is a conservative isolationist who is not enthusiastic about a US military base on Serbian soil any more than Cuba is about Gitmo. He charged that, in recognizing Kosovo, Washington was "ready to unscrupulously and violently jeopardize international order for the sake of its own military interests." To the would-be independent Kosovo government, however, Bondsteel is no problem.

Russia and a few other nations are fighting the recognition of Kosovo as an independent nation, but that is unlikely to succeed. Still, this action will undoubtedly reverberate for years to come. "We have in Serbia a situation in which the U.S. has forced an action --the proclamation of independence by the Kosovo Albanians -- that is in clear violation of the most fundamental principles of international law after World War II," argues Robert Hayden, Director of the Center for Russian and East European Studies at the University of Pittsburgh. "Borders cannot be changed by force and without consent -- that principle was actually the main stated reason for the 1991 U.S. attack on Iraq."

And this brings us full circle. International law matters only when it is convenient for the US. So too are the cries for "humanitarian interventions." And despite the extremism of the Bush administration, this is hardly a uniquely Republican phenomenon. In a just world, there would be a humanitarian intervention against the US occupation of Iraq -- with its indiscriminate killings of civilians, torture chambers and widespread human rights violations. There certainly would have been such an intervention during the bipartisan slaughter, through bombs and sanctions, of Iraq's people over the past 18 years. But that's what you get when the cops and judges and prosecutors are the criminals. US policy has always operated on a worthy victim, unworthy victim system that is almost never primarily about saving the victims. Humanitarianism is the publicly offered justification for the action, seldom, if ever, the primary motivation. With Iraq, Bush wheeled out the humanitarian justification for the occupation--Saddam's brutality -- only after the WMD lies were thoroughly debunked. In Yugoslavia, Clinton used it right out of the gates. In both cases, it rang insincere.

If you are a victim who happens to share a common geography with US interests, international law is on your side as long as it is convenient. If not, well, tough. The UN is just a debate club anyway. Just ask the tens of thousands of Kurds who were slaughtered by Turkey with weapons sold to them by the Clinton administration during the 1990s. Or the Palestinians who live under the brutality of Israel's occupation. In some cases, the "victims" allegedly being protected by the US actually get bombed themselves, as was the case with President Clinton's "humanitarian" bombings of the north and south of Iraq once every three days in the late 1990s.

In the bigger picture, the Bush administration's quick recognition of an independent Kosovo has given us a powerful reminder of a fact that is too often overlooked these days: empire is bipartisan, as are the tactics and rhetoric and bombs used to defend and expand it.

Jeremy Scahill is author of The New York Times-bestseller "Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army.". He can be reached at jeremy(AT)democracynow.org

This article was originally published by Alternet.

Statement of Bishop Artemije on Kosovo

Bishop Artemije issued the statement prior to his visit to Washington

(source: PRNewswire-USNewswire)

Following today's publication of a Washington Times commentary written by former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, former UN Ambassador John Bolton and former Assistant Secretary of Defense Peter Rodman urging the Bush Administration to withhold recognition of a unilateral declaration of Kosovo independence, His Grace, Bishop Artemije of Ras and Prizren issued the following statement prior to his visit to Washington to meet with Administration and Congressional officials and policymakers:

As I begin my latest mission to Washington, my country is being subjected to heightened threats from the government of the United States with respect to the future of the Serbian province of Kosovo and Metohija. Having just returned from Berlin and consultations with Members of the Bundestag, the Administration, and think tanks, NGOs, and media, it is clear that America's European allies are increasingly concerned about the consequences of the course Washington is trying to impose on them. The U.S. response has been to step up the pressure.

For example, the press in Slovenia, currently chairing the European Union, recently revealed American officials' diktat to supposedly independent countries. In an account confirmed by Slovenian official sources, we hear American diplomats commanding the timing of a planned unilateral declaration of independence by the Albanian Muslim administration in Pristina and its recognition by the U.S. and some other governments. Even exposed is the shameful intention to trigger the crisis on the Lord's Day to thwart Russia in convening an emergency session of the Security Council.

Threats have already been issued that after an independence declaration and recognition, force would be used to shut down so-called "parallel structures" in Serbian enclaves -- in reality the legitimate institutions of our state -- including the Mitrovica office of the Ministry for Kosovo and Metohija. Such actions, with expected attacks on Serbian citizens, would constitute a direct assault on the Serbian state and the Serbian nation. While it would be inappropriate to disclose Serbia's specific response, we will defend our territory and our people as would any other democratic country. Russia and other friendly countries are prepared to assist us.

Should Washington and its followers make good on their current threats to recognize Kosovo, Serbia would never accept it. Not only Russia but many other countries, especially those outside of Europe, would reject recognition. Kosovo would never become a member of the United Nations. We would regard the international presence in Kosovo, including the mission now being considered by the EU, as an occupation force. We Serbs have suffered many occupations in the past and triumphed over them. If necessary we would survive this one as well. Despite any intensification of the terror to which we Christians have been subjected since 1999, my flock in Kosovo has no intention of leaving their homes.

I do not welcome having to direct these critical words at the United States. Serbs have always regarded America as a friend and continue to do so. Americans and Serbs were allies in both World Wars. We are not the ones who are pursuing a confrontation today. But it is impossible for America to profess friendship with Serbia while demanding the amputation of the most precious part of our homeland.

Despite the mistakes made so far, I am convinced that there is still a chance reason will prevail and the disastrous path laid before us will be averted. Today three highly respected former U.S. officials published a thoughtful and constructive analysis of the looming injury to American national interests:

"We believe that an imposed settlement of the Kosovo question and seeking to partition Serbia's sovereign territory without its consent is not in the interest of the United States. The blithe assumption of American policy -- that the mere passage of nine years of relative quiet would be enough to lull Serbia and Russia into reversing their positions on a conflict that goes back centuries -- has proven to be naive in the extreme. We believe that American policy on Kosovo must be reexamined without delay, and we urge the Bush Administration to make it clear that pending the results of such reexamination it would withhold recognition of a Kosovo independence declaration and discourage Kosovo's Albanians from taking that step."

Secretary Lawrence Eagleburger, Ambassador John Bolton, and Assistant Secretary Peter Rodman conclude: "As with thorny questions elsewhere, viable and enduring settlements should result from negotiation and compromise. Such an outcome has been undermined by an American promise to the Kosovo Albanians that their demands will be satisfied if they remain adamant and no agreement is reached with Belgrade." I believe that negotiations must continue until a mutually acceptable solution can be found to allow us and our Albanian neighbors to live together in peace. Honest talks, without ultimatums or guaranteed results for either side, with no outcome barred from discussion, can still bear fruit. I ask all Americans of good will to ask their leaders in Washington to choose this path.


For more information, please visit the American Council for Kosovo's Web site at http://www.savekosovo.org.

The American Council for Kosovo is an activity of Squire Sanders Public Advocacy, LLC, and Global Strategic Communications Group, which are registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act as agents for the Serbian National Council of Kosovo and Metohija, under the spiritual guidance of His Grace, Bishop ARTEMIJE of Ras and Prizren. Additional information with respect to this matter is on file with the Foreign Agents Registration Unit of the Department of Justice in Washington DC.

Torture versus international law: a highly interesting interview with the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture

In the US of A it is often considered "de bon ton" to trash the United Nations and all the other international institutions which were created after World War II to replace the rule of the jungle with the rule of law in international affairs. Ignorant inbred rednecks hate the UN because they fear that the "Black Helicopters" will invade their villages, libertarians hate the UN because they hate anything 'government' and they assume (mistakenly) that the UN is, or tries to be, a 'world government', conservatives hate the UN because it tells them that they cannot bomb whom they want without a UNSC authorization and the democrats hate the UN simply because they think that hating the UN makes them look more 'patriotic'. Hardly anyone is aware of the fact that UN is much bigger and much more diverse that just the UNSC.

George Kenney, a former State Department diplomat who resigned over the US policies the the Balkans, has a very interesting blog called "Electric Politics" which features interesting articles, discussions and an extremely well designed weekly interview available for podcast and download. On November 16th of this year, George Kenny interviewed Manfred Nowak, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture. The interview is available here for download.

I urge everybody to listen to this most interesting conversation, in particular all my readers in the USA, as it touches on many crucial issues including the importance, nature and relevance of the international legal instruments on such issues like torture, and on what kind of socio-cultural evolution is taking place in Europe and the rest of the world while the USA is *regressing* on pretty much all issues of internationally agreed conventions, practices and policies. Nothing illustrates this better than the issues of torture and secret detention.

Check out all the other podcasts available on George Kenny's website. Almost all of them are extremely interesting.

Torture Endorsed, Torture Denied

Marjorie Cohn of Thomas Jefferson School of Law says that the Bush administration's repeated insistence that it has not endorsed the torture of prisoners rings hollow in light of newly-disclosed US Department of Justice memos supporting the harshest techniques the CIA has ever used...

By Marjorie Cohn

The April 2004 publication of grotesque photographs of naked Iraqis piled on top of each other, forced to masturbate, and led around on leashes like dogs, sent shock waves around the world. George W. Bush declared, “I shared a deep disgust that those prisoners were treated the way they were treated.” Yet less than a year later, his Justice Department issued a secret opinion endorsing the harshest techniques the CIA has ever used, according to a report in the New York Times. These include head slapping, frigid temperatures, and water boarding, in which the subject is made to feel he is drowning. Water boarding is widely considered a torture technique. Once again, Bush is compelled to issue a denial. “This government does not torture people,” he insisted.

This was not the first time the Bush administration had officially endorsed torture, however. John Yoo, writing for the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, penned an August 2002 memorandum that rewrote the legal definition of torture to require the equivalent of organ failure. This memo violated the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, a treaty the United States ratified, and therefore part of U.S. law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

In December 2002, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld approved interrogation methods that included the use of dogs, hooding, stress positions, isolation for up to 30 days, 20-hour interrogations, deprivation of light and sound, and water boarding. U.S. Navy General Counsel Alberto Mora told William Haynes, the Pentagon’s general counsel, that Rumsfeld’s “authorized interrogation techniques could rise to the level of torture.” As a result, Rumsfeld rescinded some methods but reserved the right to approve others, including water boarding, on a case-by-case basis.

When Bush maintained last week that his government doesn’t torture prisoners, he stressed the necessity of interrogation to “protect the American people.” Notwithstanding the myth perpetuated by shows like “24,” however, torture doesn’t work. Experts agree that people who are tortured will say anything to make the torture stop.

One of the first victims of the Bush administration’s 2002 torture policy was Abu Zubaydah, whom they called “chief of operations” for al Qaeda and bin Laden’s “number three man.” He was repeatedly tortured at the secret CIA “black sites.” They water boarded him, withheld his medication, threatened him with impending death, and bombarded him with continuous deafening noise and harsh lights.

But Zubaydah wasn’t a top al Qaeda leader. Dan Coleman, one of the FBI’s leading experts on al Qaeda, said of Zubaydah, “He knew very little about real operations, or strategy … He was expendable, you know, the greeter . . . Joe Louis in the lobby of Caeser’s Palace, shaking hands.” Moreover, Zubaydah was schizophrenic; according to Coleman, “This guy is insane, certifiable split personality.” Coleman’s views were echoed at the top levels of the CIA and were communicated to Bush and Cheney. But Bush scolded CIA director George Tenet, saying, “I said [Zubaydah] was important. You’re not going to let me lose face on this, are you?” Zubaydah’s minor role in al Qaeda and his apparent insanity were kept secret.

In response to the torture, Zubaydah told his interrogators about myriad terrorist targets al Qaeda had in its sights: the Brooklyn Bridge, the Statute of Liberty, shopping malls, banks, supermarkets, water systems, nuclear plants, and apartment buildings. Al Qaeda was close to building a crude nuclear bomb, Zubaydah reported. None of this was corroborated but the Bush gang reacted to each report zealously.

Moreover, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, considered the mastermind of the September 11 attacks, was tortured so severely - including by water boarding - that the information he provided is virtually worthless. A potentially rich source of intelligence was lost as a result of the torture.

Bush’s insistence that his administration doesn’t torture rings hollow. He lied about weapons of mass destruction and a Saddam-al Qaeda connection in Iraq. He lied when he assured us his officials would not wiretap without warrants. As evidence of secret memos detailing harsh interrogation policies continues to emerge, we can’t believe Bush’s denials about torture.

Democrats in Congress have demanded they be allowed to see the memos, but Bush said the interrogation methods have been “fully disclosed to appropriate members of Congress.” Senator John D. Rockefeller IV was unmoved. “I’m tired of these games,” he said. “They can’t say that Congress has been fully briefed while refusing to turn over key documents used to justify the legality of the program.”

It is incumbent upon the Senate Judiciary Committee to vigorously interrogate Michael Mukasey during his attorney general confirmation hearing. As AG, Mukasey would oversee the department that writes interrogation policy. Mukasey should know that the Convention Against Torture prohibits torture in all circumstances, even in times of war.

Torture is a war crime. Those who commit or order torture can be convicted under the U.S. War Crimes Statute. Techniques that don’t rise to the level of torture but constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment also violate U.S. law. Congress should provide for the appointment of a special independent counsel to fully investigate and prosecute all who are complicit in the torture of prisoners in U.S. custody.

Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and president of the National Lawyers Guild. She is the author of Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law. Her articles are archived at http://www.marjoriecohn.com/

Truly, we have returned to the Middle-Ages

Did a non-member of the IAEA really attack an IAEA member in early September?

The Times Online has published an interesting story which claims that the Israeli Air Force overflight of Syria in early September was part of a complex military operating aimed at seizing and destroying nuclear materials shipped from the DPRK to Syria:

Israeli commandos from the elite Sayeret Matkal unit – almost certainly dressed in Syrian uniforms – made their way stealthily towards a secret military compound near Dayr az-Zawr in northern Syria. They were looking for proof that Syria and North Korea were collaborating on a nuclear programme.

Israel had been surveying the site for months, according to Washington and Israeli sources. President George W Bush was told during the summer that Israeli intelligence suggested North Korean personnel and nuclear-related material were at the Syrian site.

(...)

Today the site near Dayr az-Zawr lies in ruins after it was pounded by Israeli F15Is on September 6. Before the Israelis issued the order to strike, the commandos had secretly seized samples of nuclear material and taken them back into Israel for examination by scientists, the sources say. A laboratory confirmed that the unspecified material was North Korean in origin. America approved an attack.

If true, this story is indeed very interesting. Let us assume that everything this article says is true. Let us assume that North Korea has indeed shipped some nuclear materials to Syria, let us even further assume that these nuclear materials are indeed related to some nuclear weapons program, let us even assume that the Israelis had incontrovertible information that the Syrians planned to somehow integrate this nuclear material to their missile forces. And now let us now summarize what the Times article really says:

The article says that a state armed with hundreds of nuclear weapons, a state which is not a member of the IAEA, can carry out an unprovoked attack on a sovereign member of the UN and a fully compliant IAEA member in good standing (in fact, Syria has just been voted in as a co-chairman of the IAEA). It can illegally seize its property, destroy its resaerch facilities and kill its nationals. And it can do all this with the full backing of the USA, a member of the IAEA and one of the five Permanent Members of United Nation Security Council.

Yes, Syria is a member of the IAEA since 1963. The very purpose of the IAEA is to create a legal and non-violent mechanism to prevent any of its member from acquiring nuclear weapons and to monitor all its nuclear research programs to alert the world community about any possible illegal activities. The IAEA's record is flawless: never has an IAEA member succeeded covertly developing a nuclear weapon.

The point is not that the Israelis have violated international law: Israel has already violated international law more than any other country and, probably, more than all other countries taken together (also, the USA has imposed more vetoes at the Security Council than the other UNSC Permanent Five taken together, and most of them in support of, what else, Israel).

No, the amazing thing is that, if confirmed, such an action raises no objections from the other members of the IAEA or of the UN for that matter. The culture thuggery of "might makes right" which has been spearheaded by the US and Israel for decades already has obviously become an integral part of international relations.

Likewise, the international community seems to have fully accepted a truly phenomenal double standard in what regards anything involving Israel (just imagine the outrage triggered by a Syrian bombing on any part of the huge Israeli nuclear weapons program).

International law, just like any other form of law, has as a primary objective the civilized settlement of conflicts. However imperfect, the law is the only mechanism which mankind has devised to avoid the "law of the jungle" in which the mighty "take the law in their own hands" like lynchmobs and street thugs do.

The wholesale abandonment of any kind of respect for international law by the USraelian Empire is the single biggest threat to international peace and order and no country in the world can consider itself safe from Imperial aggression.

Truly, we have returned to the Middle Ages.