Phalange: Govt. Can’t Be Selective in Dealing with International Law

I'll try to electroshock our little brains that r programmed to click on red thumb down..

International Law Should not be selective... I guess this is what is at stake more than what a lousy gov. in a banana republic can or has to do and I think that many will agree with that.

Unfortunately, SPECIAL International Law is by definition selective and almost all people on this board are to; not because they r stupid but mostly because they r brainwashed.

Now for the electroshock and proof will follow: Mladic is not a monster, not more than Bachir Gemayel or Geagea, we can say criminals or war criminals and if we have to give a certain justice, it should be the same for everyone I guess... below, I will give some reading that will help people better compare Mladic with some FL leaders (u could add to your choice as well Jumblatt, Arafat, Berri (but would be less of an electroshock on this board)). Dumb people just press Red Thumb, other people can continue to read next messages

Naser Oric, the Bosnian Muslim military commander in those years, actually bragged about his killings to Western journalists, showing them videos of beheadings, and acknowledging an action which had left 114 Serb dead.16 What a field day the ICTY would have had if such admissions, and videos, had been attributable to Karadzic, or Mladic, or Milosevic! But given their attribution to an alleged defender of a victim population, Oric could get away with murder. General Philippe Morillon, who had been in charge of UN forces in the Srebrenica area, told the ICTY that Serb brutality at Srebrenica could be explained in good part by this prior Oric-Bosnian Muslim violence.

You can find the full article @ http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/herman200710.html

The writer is is professor emeritus of finance at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania and has written extensively on economics, political economy, and the media.

Germinal Civikov spent years investigating on Yougoslavia war and wrote a very interesting book":

People (not the red clickers) can read a very interesting review of the book: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3894

And the book at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/51220592/Germinal-Civikov-Srebrenica-Star-Witness

Other staff u can read (in french, sorry for those who don't read french but there r tools to translate):
http://michelcollon.info/Le-dossier-cache-de-Srebrenica.html?lang=fr
http://michelcollon.info/La-corruption-de-la-Justice.html?lang=fr
http://michelcollon.info/L-039-accuse-Milosevic-est-mort-la.html?lang=fr

Now, what does this prove... not much except that:

Media propaganda are not easy to overcome

International Justice when made Special for NATO, US interest COULD be rather partial and information could be filtered to make you think you know the TRUTH

There isn't a single truth but many and it's hard to navigate and TRUTH is probably somewhere between all those pre-served truths

Nothing is black or white

thinking. m14, m8 without criticizing ur own beliefs/leaders and looking always for more info to better understand things and have some critical thinking instead of pre-shaped ideas -brainwashed into your heads- won't help u or your country or ur nation.

Serve your country based on your own thinking and don't follow blindly any camp or leader...

I hope that some on these boards will at least read what I wrote and chock their brain to question their Truth & political Dogma

In an hour something, we got three red thumbs which as known didn't probably read the content of the messages and took the time to try to activate their brainwashed neurons.

What is funny is that people probably tag in red according to the name of the person posting without even try to challenge what is written; they don't even try to open dialog or debate of the content.

Bravo to m14 and m8 leadership who have succeeded so well that Critical Thinking is void for almost their entire set of supporters.

You should be all proud to talk about democracies and justice while voting green or red without even reading.... I guess this is one of the weapons of m14 (could be also for m8 but it's funny to mention it since Geagea did that today), no dialog and democratic tools, we vote you out without even reading what you say or try to understand or debate the message.

It is simply very sad to c that this is what democracy means 4 many people on this thread, vote b 4 u think.

peace.. I think that u didn't take the time to read the content & learn more about Special Tribunal manipulations, try to read the whole thing, give it the necessary time.

I am for the International Criminal Court to take action on Lebanon files, I am just against Special justice and have reasons (exposed in the material above) to think that it is biased and that u will never know what proofs were given or what happened in court (if u think u will, then tell me why u and most of the people r totally wrong on what happened in Yougoslavia... why you don't know the Truth.

I am not saying that Syria or Hezb or Iran didn't kill innocent people and Hariri but I am saying that a tribunal that will judge Israel, Syria and Hezbollah will be more credible for everyone.

In ur post, u focus again on details, the finger rather than the moon, try to think out-of-the-box, take the time to read & analyse the material I posted & we can discuss & start a real dialog... just read & then we dialog

If u want to start with some video, maybe it's easier, it won't go into the details but u will at least learn few things:

http://wn.com/Fraud_called_Srebrenica_Massacre__the_Truth

http://wn.com/Serbian_Concentration_Camp_fabrication (start with Chomsky, he certainly ain't pro-Serbia)

How pathetic they are, with all their weapons and so many brainwashed sheep and still they are scared to death of the STL. Even fatso in the hole has become clumsy.

But then again, let’s assume that u are right. After all they are very well known cases of innocent jugged guilty and vice versa. But how can you condemn and make what we call in French “un proces d’intention” before!
This is what is not acceptable. YOU have juged before the court has… you won’t even give it a chance… HB itself said that it would accept the sentence should the proof be irrefutable… so let’s see!

@mabboud
Please…read yourself before you give us lessons:
“SPECIAL International Law is by definition selective” What kind of argument is that!!??
“almost all people on this board is (…) brainwashed” ok… very clever and objective argumentation ya mabboud…
“Dumb people just press Red Thumb” What’s your problem…is this supposed to support your argumentation as being valid?
Also, you learn in history that all events have a series of factors who determine the context. Compare ex- Yugoslavia with Lebanon if you wish, but your argumentation is one sided.
As for Oric Naser, he was trialed, and imprisoned, and jugged guilty for failing to prevent the deaths of five and the mistreatment of eleven Bosnian Serbs prisoners. Maybe all his speeches were propaganda and intimidation. I don’t know. I do not have all the elements, and I trust the people who are more competent that I to do their job.

Patriot...

I don't care about Red or Green, it means shit, I ws just being provocative that people press red without even reading or on things that don't even necessitate good or bad.. and that argumentation is better that just clicking (c'est tout).

Now, concerning the why a Special International Law is by definition selective is simply because it is special (I though that people will understand that Justice can't be Special by definition but fair and for all).

As for Oric Naser, he was acquitted from War Crime but this is a detail, and yes, there are plenty of proof that he did commit war crimes, UN appealed but in a Special tribunal, it does no;t count.

Now, concerning what we learn from history, we learn that Special Tribunals have been always set by Big Powers r war winners to accomplish a pre-defined agenda... yesterday Al-Akhbar published how the STL was set-up to push for 1559. This is what story tells us, context has always been Hidden Agenda.

I listed all lessons that we could get from looking and learning from history and bored enough people explaining why I don't like the STL and that I prefer the ICC or at least a Siera-Leone kind of tribunal.

What is irrefutable proof.... when there is one, there is no need for months to study a file and issue an indictment, it's straightforward and no need for lot's of blabla... strong circumstantial evidence could be.

For the nth time, I don't care what HN says and what he thinks, I care more about justice and truth which could only be served by an impartial and recognized authority such as the ICC.

Court that are established after a crime by few countries using the security council with special rules and procedures and mercenaries as employees (in french: on a vu un defile de proc et d'enqueteurs.. Mehlis, Bramertz, Belm.) not counting the many defections!! Such courts simply don't inspire confidence and trust.

patriot.. the problem is not that I am doing “un proces d’intention” but rather what are the intentions behind this tribunal....

And please, don't tell me that US, France and few others were doing it for Justice and with no hidden agenda, I am certain that u can't be that naive... could you?

If Us, France and the other powerful nations wanted Justice, they would all have signed the Rome Statutes and would have pushed to get the Syrian regime attacked under the ICC for war crimes and crimes against humanity and the same thing would go to sue Israel and others Lebanese... but I would have been happy with just Syria and Israel (though this will never happen).

Simply put, there is a hidden agenda that is not Syria, thus the Special Tribunal and it is clearer everyday that it is 1559 and the arms of HA (cf. http://www.al-akhbar.com/print/16404)

Et voila, je suggere que tu lises en details les articles ci-dessus pour mieux comprendre l'articulation d'un tribunal special et son inequite.

mabboud tell me if i am wrong but the international justice cannot attack or sue a ruling government, can they? just vote for sanctions against the country but cannot bring a ruling president to a court.

so for israel they cannot judge their criminal policy , just can vote for sanctions.
so a special tribunal against a ruling regime is not possible, right or wrong?

france wants severe sanctions against syria for all the human rights violations they ve done so far but who opposes it? russia and china.

peace... you are mistaken, the International Criminal Court (ICC) could in theory sue Israel... How?

In the case of Israel (or Syria) none have signed Rome Statutes and as such, the only way to bring those ton confront the ICC is through the security council (normal countries who are signatories can be brought to ICC with a simple (facon de parler) file of claim, no need to have Security Council acceptance.

Needless to say that USrael will never be hurt because of the vetoing power it has (by the way, Ahmadinejad is asking for such Veto power to be abolished or Muslim countries be given a Veto as well... it is ridiculous since there is no Country for Muslims and I am for removing veto, else Security Council will never be able to bring justice... no?).

Concerning Syria, I guess that Russia and China regret playing a more or less fair game (I don't know what they got in exchange) for Libya and are probably no ready to pass on Syria.

Peace, ICC was asked by security council to target Qaddafi which confirms the above statement that u can sue.

You r noticing now how much international justice is in fact unfair and a tool for super powers, the ICC is based on Rome Statutes and many countries ratified it, some like Sweden went even to revise and align their own system with the Rome Statutes.

The weakness of the ICC is that many countries didn't sign and are above the law except if the security council decides that they are not... which means that the Big 5 and their friends are above international laws which makes it "Justice for some".

ICC has a budget close to EURO 100 Million per year and has rules and procedures that are not "Special".

People who believe in justice and want to improve International Justice and decrease Special Tribunals manipulations and bias security council should ratify Rome Statutes and refuse any other form or ersatz of International Justice.

Hope it's not too boring & hat it's useful.

nice dialog! don't forget to click...