whereisjustice
whereisjustice's JournalHillary Clinton offers citizens of Ferguson strong support with silent protest...
Clearly a local matter. Unlike Israel.
Very presidential, indeed.
They say the police are untrained in use of force, I disagree
They are doing exactly what they were trained to do. This is the national disaster that we need to fix before it gets any worse.
the chase that involved more than 100 officers and five dozen police cruisers
When the shooting stopped that night in November 2012, a man and a woman, both African-American, were dead, riddled with bullets in the car’s front seat. There was no evidence that either had a gun. Investigations suggested that they had set out to purchase crack cocaine in a car that apparently backfired as it passed an officer, and then panicked when the police tried to pull them over.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/18/us/justice-department-examining-local-police-turns-focus-to-cleveland.html
I hope people are beginning to recognize a trend here...
police threaten to shoot live stream reporter
"get the fuck out of here or I will shoot you", pointing gun at as face.
I saw/heard it, everyone watching the stream saw it.
There is some sick shit going on here. These cops are literally provoking a riot.
After watching Israel rape and pillage Gaza, we now know, all's fair in asymmetrical war and peace.
Where are all the "if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about" types? Snug as a bug behind their gated communities and walled gardens, working on next weeks talking points, or maybe a nice warm speech defending torture as the ultimate expression of patriotism.
http://new.livestream.com/accounts/9035483/events/3271930
send millions of jobs to China and India, start endless wars, start spying on citizens,
give banking criminals immunity (and free money) because they are rich, send military gear to local police, gouge the young with outrageous tuition bills, slash middle class wages, hire H1Bs to take even more jobs from Americans, pass stupid goddamn legislation like the Patriot Act, let corporations write their own public policy... then, act surprised when shit hits the fan?
This is class warfare, another surge of apologies would be like pouring gasoline on a fire. Democratic Party needs to take the lead and start holding the rich and powerful accountable for their bad behavior.
Tell me again, why, if we aren't doing anything wrong, we have nothing to worry about?
Or if we aren't saying things on the internet or cell phones that might make the Government uncomfortable, we have nothing to worry about?
Or, if we aren't wearing clothes that provoke a sexual assault, we have nothing to worry about, why is that?
Or, if we aren't a black kid walking around making a white person uncomfortable, we have nothing to worry about?
And, why shouldn't we worry about the Government spying on the press?
Now, tell me again why the Patriot Act makes us safe?
And as police departments buy up military assault weapons and armored vehicles, why nothing to worry about?
And, one more time, why is it that we must blindly trust our political leaders and never protest or challenge authority?
Why do these ideas make such logical sense to you?
Because, I just don't fucking get it and think it's about time we start worrying about you.
Here is when they will release his name...
After the officer has been coached and memorized his lines.
After rehearsing the scene until it is perfect.
After they are done building the set, going over it and over it, cleaning and scrubbing and scrubbing some more.
After they've washed the blood from their hands.
Only then, and not a second before.
wtf? genuine liberal anti-Democrat Democrats?
Election time is around the corner and that means we need to be afraid of strangers. Take dissent. Real Democrats have nothing to complain about. So, when you start hearing all that whining about income disparity, and jobs and poverty and spying, (yawn), it can only mean one thing - a Genuine Liberal Anti-Democrat Democrat (GLADD) troll.
For example, Terry Gross. She is clearly a GLADD, placed at NPR as a double agent by Fox News. The good news is NSA is now spying on her since she stupidly revealed herself as a clear and present danger under the "belligerency clause" of the Patriot Act.
Now, some of you real patriots out there need some help identifying the hater posts planted by anti-Democrat Democrats. I've prepared some useful examples, see if you can spot the GLADD:
"I don't like Clinton because of her ties to bankers and corporations and the third way" including a reference from, Mother Jones
STRANGER, DANGER!
Clearly this person has an anti-Hillary agenda and is spewing lies from Mother Jones, a propaganda instrument of the right wing echo chamber.
[hr]
"Obama is lying when he says the average life expectancy of the Russian male is 60", then quoting Forbes
STRANGER, DANGER!
Forget about that Republican shitrag Forbes, the comment said the President is ... (Jesus, I can't even bring myself to say it let alone type it). Bush lied! Obama is doing what is BEST FOR AMERICA! Is that so hard to understand, Joe Wilson? And, by default, this is clearly slandering Hillary Clinton as well.
[hr]
"Chelsea Clinton was paid $600,000 as an NBC special correspondent. Among her tasks: fluffing up the GEICO Insurance Co. lizard
STRANGER, DANGER!
Do you know how dangerous that interview was? It was so dangerous that Chelsea had to stay off camera, protected by SEAL Team 6, ready to neutralize the fearsome reptile, inject the anti-venom in her most royal of areas and MEDEVAC her to her $5,000,000 apartment in Manhattan for recuperation. Besides, what did you expect, flowers in her hair talking about peace and love, like some kind of hippy? And I might add the episode was totally adorable, you rock, corporate chick, I'm totally voting for GEICO!
[hr]
"Clinton says she's dead broke while on a reported haul of $5 million in speaking fees, and in 2004 Hillary Clinton was ranked the 10th-wealthiest member of the Senate worth between $10 million and $50 million.."
STRANGER, DANGER!
Hillary did NOT (do that thing that means untrue). Only a greedy Republican public servant tries to hide the amount and sources of their money from public view so it doesn't mess up a carefully scripted narrative.
[hr]
"Did you catch what Hillary wore at her Fidelity Investment speaking engagement? She rocked that pants suit!
RIGHT ON! UPVOTE THIS AND SHOW YOUR LOVE!
Be vigilant! Be strong! Eliminate all non-conformists! Real Democrats need all the help they can get focusing on the issues that matter!
Aryan Brotherhood of Texas - terrorizing the people of the United States for decades
http://accessadl.blogspot.com/2012/06/bloody-trail-of-aryan-brotherhood-of.html
Our security is at risk. The Aryan Brotherhood is a group of 10,000 terrorists, with the Texas group being the most violent.
Along with a high number of right wing terrorist groups killing innocent Americans, Texas is home to radicals calling for the destruction of our nation through armed succession, including Richard Lance McLaren who took hostages with his group, leading to an armed standoff.
The only way these terrorists in Texas can be defeated is by all out invasion and war, killing anyone and destroying everything with any possible links to the terrorist movement. We must stand firm against the Texas threat terrorizing the USA, causing innocent people to live in fear.
If Texas doesn't want to be destroyed with relentless violence by the right to our own self defense, then the leadership of Texas should stop harboring terrorists and surrender.
In addition, we can secure our safety by establishing protected settlements in Texas, offering financial incentives for relocation of liberals from the crowded northern states.
The US has a right to exist and certainly all nations can understand the need to protect ourselves from the radical right wing terrorists of Texas.
Texas can agree to stop the violence, but instead they continue to choose terror over peace, leaving us no other choice but to respond in the strongest way possible.
Perhaps this is how we should deal with our own terrorists?
Rule 89. Violence to Life
Rule 89. Violence to Life
Rule 89. Murder is prohibited.
Summary
State practice establishes this rule as a norm of customary international law applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts.
International and non-international armed conflicts
The prohibition of murder of civilians was already recognized in the Lieber Code.[1] Murder of civilians and prisoners of war was included as a war crime in the Charter of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg.[2] Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds” of civilians and persons hors de combat.[3] All four Geneva Conventions list “wilful killing” of protected persons as a grave breach.[4] The prohibition of murder is recognized as a fundamental guarantee by Additional Protocols I and II.[5] Murder is also specified as a war crime under the Statute of the International Criminal Court with respect to both international and non-international armed conflicts and under the Statutes of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda and of the Special Court for Sierra Leone.[6]
The prohibition on killing civilians and persons hors de combat is set forth in numerous military manuals.[7] It is also contained in the legislation of a large number of States.[8] This prohibition has been upheld extensively in national and international case-law.[9] Furthermore, it is supported by official statements and other practice.[10]
Alleged violations of this rule have consistently been condemned by States and international organizations, for example, by the UN Security Council, UN General Assembly and UN Commission on Human Rights with respect to the conflicts in Afghanistan, Burundi and the former Yugoslavia.[11] Allegations of such violations have also been denied by the States concerned, for example, during the Iran–Iraq War.[12]
The ICRC has on numerous occasions condemned the killing of civilians and persons hors de combat, stating that such behaviour is prohibited under international humanitarian law.[13]
Murder of civilians and persons hors de combat is also prohibited under international human rights law, albeit in different terms. Human rights treaties prohibit the “arbitrary deprivation of the right to life”.[14] This prohibition is non-derogable under these treaties and therefore applicable at all times.[15] In their statements before the International Court of Justice in the Nuclear Weapons case and Nuclear Weapons (WHO) case, several States which were not at the time party to the main human rights treaties stressed the elementary and non-derogable character of the right to life.[16]
The prohibition of “arbitrary deprivation of the right to life” under human rights law, however, also encompasses unlawful killing in the conduct of hostilities, i.e., the killing of civilians and persons hors de combat not in the power of a party to the conflict not justified under the rules on the conduct of hostilities. In its advisory opinion in the Nuclear Weapons case, the International Court of Justice stated that “the test of what is an arbitrary deprivation of life, however, then falls to be determined by the applicable lex specialis, namely, the law applicable in armed conflict which is designed to regulate the conduct of hostilities”.[17] As discussed in the chapters that deal with the conduct of hostilities, unlawful killings can result, for example, from a direct attack against a civilian (see Rule 1), from an indiscriminate attack (see Rule 11) or from an attack against military objectives causing excessive loss of civilian life (see Rule 14), all of which are prohibited by the rules on the conduct of hostilities.
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has also used international humanitarian law as a method of interpreting the right to life during hostilities in situations amounting to armed conflict.[18] However, in other cases, human rights bodies have directly applied human rights law, without reference to international humanitarian law, in assessing whether there has been a violation of the right to life during hostilities.[19] In a number of cases relating to non-international armed conflicts or serious internal disturbances (including those involving the use of military force), the UN Human Rights Committee, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights have stressed the need for proper precautions to be taken, for limitation of the use of force to the degree strictly necessary and for investigations to be undertaken in the case of suspicious deaths in order to ensure that a loss of life is not “arbitrary”.[20]
[1] Lieber Code, Articles 23 and 44 (cited in Vol. II, Ch. 32, §§ 678–679).
[2] IMT Charter (Nuremberg), Article 6(b) (ibid., § 654).
[3] Geneva Conventions, common Article 3 (ibid., § 655).
[4] First Geneva Convention, Article 50 (ibid., § 662); Second Geneva Convention, Article 51 (ibid., § 662); Third Geneva Convention, Article 130 (ibid., § 662); Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 147 (ibid., § 662).
[5] Additional Protocol I, Article 75(2)(a) (adopted by consensus) (ibid., § 669); Additional Protocol II, Article 4(2)(a) (adopted by consensus) (ibid., § 670).
[6] ICC Statute, Article 8(2)(a)(i) and (c)(i) (ibid., §§ 675–676); ICTY Statute, Article 2(a) (ibid., § 695); ICTR Statute, Article 4(a) (ibid., § 696); Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, Article 3(a) (ibid., § 677).
[7] See, e.g., the military manuals of Argentina (ibid., §§ 702–703), Australia (ibid., §§ 704–705), Belgium (ibid., § 706), Benin (ibid., § 707), Bosnia and Herzegovina (ibid., § 708), Burkina Faso (ibid., § 709), Cameroon (ibid., §§ 710–711), Canada (ibid., § 712), Colombia (ibid., §§ 713–715), Congo (ibid., § 716), Croatia (ibid., §§ 717–718), Ecuador (ibid., § 719), El Salvador (ibid., § 720), France (ibid., §§ 721–724), Germany (ibid., §§ 725–726), Hungary (ibid., § 727), Israel (ibid., § 728), Italy (ibid., § 729), Kenya (ibid., § 730), Republic of Korea (ibid., § 731), Madagascar (ibid., § 732), Mali (ibid., § 733), Morocco (ibid., § 734), Netherlands (ibid., § 735), New Zealand (ibid., § 736), Nicaragua (ibid., § 737), Nigeria (ibid., §§ 738–740), Peru (ibid., §§ 741–742), Philippines (ibid., § 743), Romania (ibid., § 744), Russian Federation (ibid., § 745), Senegal (ibid., §§ 746–747), South Africa (ibid., § 748), Spain (ibid., § 749), Switzerland (ibid., §§ 750–751), Togo (ibid., § 752), Uganda (ibid., § 753), United Kingdom (ibid., §§ 755–756) and United States (ibid., §§ 757–761).
[8] See, e.g., the legislation (ibid., §§ 762–853).
[9] See, e.g., Australia, Military Court at Rabaul, Ohashi case and Baba Masao case (ibid., § 854); Belgium, Court-Martial of Brussels, Sergeant W. case, (ibid., § 855); Chile, Appeal Court of Santiago, Videla case (ibid., § 856); China, War Crimes Military Tribunal of the Ministry of National Defence at Nanking, Takashi Sakai case (ibid., § 854); Colombia, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Case No. C-225/95 (ibid., § 857); Israel, District Court of Jerusalem and Supreme Court, Eichmann case (ibid., § 854); Netherlands, Temporary Court-Martial at Makassar, Motomura case (ibid., § 854); Netherlands, Temporary Court-Martial at Makassar, Notomi Sueo case (ibid., § 854); Netherlands, Temporary Court-Martial at Amboina, Motosuke case (ibid., § 854); Netherlands, Special Court of Cassation, Silbertanne murders case (ibid., § 854) and Burghof case (ibid., § 854); Netherlands, Special Court (War Criminals) at Arnhem, Enkelstroth case (ibid., § 854); Norway, Court of Appeal, Bruns case (ibid., § 854) and Hans case (ibid., § 854); United Kingdom, Military Court at Almelo, Sandrock case (ibid., § 854); United States, Military Commission at Rome, Dostler case (ibid., § 854); United States, Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, List (Hostages Trial) case (ibid., § 854); United States, Military Commission in the Far East, Jaluit Atoll case (ibid., § 858); United States, Court of Military Appeals, Schultz case (ibid., § 859); ICJ, Nicaragua case (Merits), Judgment (ibid., § 925); ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, Advisory Opinion (ibid., § 926); ICTR, Ntakirutimana case, Amended Indictment (ibid., § 927); ICTY, Tadić case, Interlocutory Appeal, Second Amended Indictment and Judgment (ibid., §§ 928–930), Mrkšić case, Initial Indictment and Review of the Indictment (ibid., § 931), Erdemović case, Sentencing Judgment, Judgment on Appeal and Sentencing Judgment bis (ibid., § 932), Delalić case, Judgment (ibid., § 933), Jelisić case, Judgment (ibid., § 934), Kupreškić case, Judgment (ibid., § 935), Blaškić case, Judgment (ibid., § 936) and Kordić and Čerkez case, First Amended Indictment and Judgment (ibid., § 937); UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 6 (Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) (ibid., § 938); UN Human Rights Committee, Camargo v. Colombia (ibid., § 939); African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Civil Liberties Organisation v. Chad (ibid., § 940); European Commission of Human Rights, Dujardin and Others v. France (ibid., § 941); European Court of Human Rights, McCann and Others v. UK (ibid., § 942), Ergi v. Turkey (ibid., § 943), Yasa v. Turkey (ibid., § 943), Kurt v. Turkey (ibid., § 944), Kaya v. Turkey (ibid., § 945), Avsar v. Turkey (ibid., § 946) and K.-H. W. v. Germany (ibid., § 947); Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Resolution adopted at the 1968 Session (ibid., § 948), Case 10.559 (Peru) (ibid., § 949), Case 6724 (El Salvador), Case 10.190 (El Salvador) and Case 10.284 (El Salvador) (ibid., § 950), Case 10.287 (El Salvador) (ibid., § 951), Report on the situation of human rights in Peru (ibid., § 952), Case 11.137 (Argentina) (ibid., § 953) and Case of the Ríofrío massacre (Colombia) (ibid., § 954); Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Velásquez Rodríguez case (ibid., § 955) and Neira Alegría and Others case (ibid., § 956).
[10] See, e.g., the statements of Botswana (ibid., § 860), Brazil (ibid., § 861), China (ibid., § 863), Colombia (ibid., §§ 864–865), Costa Rica (ibid., § 866), Egypt (ibid., § 867), Indonesia (ibid., § 870), Israel (ibid., § 871), Malaysia (ibid., § 872), Mexico (ibid., § 873), Nauru (ibid., § 874), Netherlands (ibid., § 875), Nigeria (ibid., § 877), Oman (ibid., § 878), Qatar (ibid., § 879), Russian Federation (ibid., § 880), Rwanda (ibid., § 882), South Africa (ibid., § 884) and United States (ibid., §§ 886–887 and 889), the practice of China (ibid., § 862), France (ibid., § 869) and Rwanda (ibid., § 883) and the reported practice of Nigeria (ibid., § 876) and United States (ibid., § 890).
[11] See, e.g., UN Security Council, Res. 827 (ibid., § 896), Res. 1019 (ibid., § 897) and Res. 1072 (ibid., § 898); UN General Assembly, Res. 50/193 (ibid., § 902); UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1989/67, 1990/53, 1991/78 and 1992/68 (ibid., § 904).
[12] See the reported practice of the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iraq (ibid., § 916).
[13] See, e.g., ICRC, Annual Report 1982 (ibid., § 958), Conflict between Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Iran: ICRC Appeal ( ibid., § 959), Memorandum on the Applicability of International Humanitarian Law (ibid., § 961), Appeal in behalf of civilians in Yugoslavia (ibid., § 962), Communication to the Press No. 94/16 (ibid., § 964), Memorandum on Respect for International Humanitarian Law in Angola (ibid., § 965), Memorandum on Compliance with International Humanitarian Law by the Forces Participating in Opération Turquoise (ibid., § 966) and Communication to the Press No. 01/47 (ibid., § 969).
[14] See International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 6(1) (ibid., § 666); American Convention on Human Rights, Article 4 (ibid., § 667); African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Article 4 (ibid., § 671). The European Convention on Human Rights, Article 2 (ibid., § 664), does not use the term “arbitrary” but specifies a general right to life and gives an exhaustive list of when a deprivation of the right to life may be lawful.
[15] See International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 4(2) (ibid., § 666); American Convention on Human Rights, Article 27(2) (ibid., § 667); European Convention on Human Rights, Article 15(2) (ibid., § 664). The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights does not provide for any derogation of its provisions in a state of emergency and Article 15 of the European Convention states that the right to life is non-derogable, except for “lawful acts of war” in a situation which amounts to armed conflict.
[16] See the statements before the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case and Nuclear Weapons (WHO) case of Indonesia (cited in Vol. II, Ch. 32, § 870), Malaysia (ibid., § 872), Mexico (ibid., § 873), Nauru (ibid., § 874) and Qatar (ibid., § 879).
[17] ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, Advisory Opinion (ibid., § 926).
[18] See Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Case 11.137 (Argentina) (ibid., § 953) and Case of the Ríofrío massacre (Colombia) (ibid., § 954).
[19] See, e.g., African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Civil Liberties Organisation v. Chad (ibid., § 940); Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Case 6724 (El Salvador) (ibid., § 950), Case 10.190 (El Salvador) (ibid., § 950) and Case 10.284 (El Salvador) (ibid., § 950).
[20] See UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 6 (Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ibid., § 938) and Camargo v. Colombia (ibid., § 939); African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Civil Liberties Organisation v. Chad (ibid., § 940); European Court of Human Rights, McCann and Others v. UK (ibid., § 942), Ergi v. Turkey (ibid., § 943) and Yasa v. Turkey (ibid., § 943); Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the situation of human rights in Peru (ibid., § 952); Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Neira Alegría and Others case (ibid., § 956). Judicial or quasi-judicial practice confirming the need to investigate suspicious deaths, including in armed conflict situations, includes: UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 6 (Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) (ibid., § 938); African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Civil Liberties Organisation v. Chad (ibid., § 940); European Court of Human Rights, Kaya v. Turkey (ibid., § 945) and Avsar v. Turkey (ibid., § 946); Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Case 10.559 (Peru) (ibid., § 949); Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Velásquez Rodríguez case (ibid., § 955).
http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter32_rule89
Profile Information
Member since: Tue Jul 8, 2014, 09:43 PMNumber of posts: 2,941
