Wednesday, January 28, 2009


by Gail Davidson, lawyer

"We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding
generations from the scourge of war."

The war against Afghanistan is illegal. The US, assisted by Canada and
Britain is bombing Afghanistan and will perhaps use additional force
with ground troops for the stated purpose of capturing or killing
Osama bin Laden and others associated with his organization and of
toppling the Taliban government.

No international or national law or policy legalizes these attacks on
Afghanistan. No resolutions of the United Nations' Security Council or
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization could provide a legal
justification for these attacks and none do.

The war against Afghanistan violates international law including the
Charter of the United Nations (The Charter), the Geneva Conventions
and the relevant provisions of the eleven International agreements
dealing with the suppression and control of terrorism. The attacks by
bombing and the use of other military force are war crimes pursuant to
the Rome Statute.


The Charter prohibits the use and the threatened use of any force in
their international relations. The Charter specifically prohibits the
use of force to topple foreign governments. It goes without saying
that all national and international laws forbid the killing of non-
combatants (i.e. arguably all Afghanis) the bombing and other use of
force in Afghanistan will inevitably kill and injure large numbers of
non-combatants. The October 11 edition of the Vancouver Sun reports
200 Afghanistan people killed in US bombing raids including 4 United
Nations employees. October 13, 2001 reports indicate a residential
area hit by a missile. Mass killing of non-combatants is considered by
the world community the most egregious of crimes.
The Preamble to the Rome Statute, in reference to such crimes states,
"Mindful that during this century millions of children, women and men
have been victims of unimaginable atrocities that deeply shock that
conscience of humanity."
The United States, United Kingdom Canada and Afghanistan are all
Member States of the United Nations. The Charter of the United Nations
imposes on members the binding obligation to settle disputes in a
manner that ensures the maintenance of peace and justice. Article 2 of
the Charter prohibits the use or threatened use of force against
another state. [See Box I] The Article 2 prohibition applies to all
force and is a rule of customary international law. As such the
Article 2 prohibition is universally binding even on the few states
not members of the United Nations. (Nicaragua 2. U.S., ICJ Reports,
1986, pp. 98-101)

The Article 2 prohibition has been reiterated in numerous Resolutions
of the UN General Assembly. For example on 17 December 1984 the UN
General Assembly passed a resolution affirming the inadmissibility of
the policy of State terrorism including actions by States aimed at
undermining the socio-political systems in other sovereign states.
This resolution specifically prohibits the use of military action and
contains the demand:

".that all States take no actions aimed at military intervention and
occupation, forcible change in or undermining of the socio-political
system of States, destabilization and overthrow of the their
Governments and, in particular, initiate no military action to that
end under any pretext whatsoever and cease forthwith any such action
already in progress."

The fact that the attacks on Afghanistan are in response to horrific
crimes believed to have been committed by people believed to be hiding
in Afghanistan does not provide any legal justification whatsoever. As
observed in "A Modern Introduction to International Law, 7th edition",
page 261, "The Charter is based on the belief that international law
should not be enforced at the expense of international peace." Neither
can international law be enforced by the commission of more crimes.

Box I CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS - The Preamble to the Charter
states the purpose of the United Nations as "to save succeeding
generations from the scourge of war". Articles 2 prohibits the use of
force (3) &(4) read: ARTICLE 2. 3 All Members shall settle their
international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that
international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
ARTICLE 2. 4 All Members shall refrain in their international
relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial
integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other
manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS The United Nations Security Council,
(Security Council), the body with primary responsibility for the
maintenance of international peace and security, passed two
resolutions regarding the September 11 attacks: resolution 1268 on 12
September 2001 and Resolution 1373 on 28 September 2001. Neither
resolution authorizes the use of force.

Resolution 1373 (2001) adopted by the Security Council at its 4385th
meeting on 28 September 2001 (incorporating the earlier resolution 12
September) affirms the responsibility of Member States to take only
those measures that are:
"in compliance with national and international law including
international human rights standards' to prevent and suppress
terrorist attacks and to take action against the perpetrators of such
acts. Security Council resolution 1373 specifically restricts member
states to actions that are authorized by law and in accordance with
the Charter of the United Nations.

Canada is already largely in compliance with the directives contained
in Resolution 1373 and has promulgated regulations under Canada's
United Nations Act to implement provision of the resolution, including
prohibiting financing and fundraising and for freezing the assets of
terrorist organizations.

Article 51 of the Charter defines Member States' right of self-
defense. This article neither authorizes bombing and armed force as
self-defense nor bestows legal authority for the US to wage war.
Article 51 gives Member States the narrow power to defend themselves
against a continuing armed assault until such time as the Security
Council intervenes to maintain and restore peace and security. Article
51 of the Charter of the United Nations (The Charter) does not create
any right to make retaliatory attacks or to engage in the use of force
to repel anticipated armed attacks. The right to self-defense in
Article 51 is restricted to actions that are necessary to repel and
proportionate to an ongoing armed attack and only exists until the
Security Council takes measures to restore peace and security. The
right to self defense is restricted to self defense action and is
further restricted to those actions necessary to maintain
"international peace and security" and must be carried out in
accordance with The Charter.

The entire Charter is based on the premise Member States must maintain
international peace, security and justice and may not use force to
settle international disputes or to remove foreign governments.
Article 51 does not displace the obligation imposed on States by
Article 2. [See Box II]

51"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of
individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs
against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has
taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.
Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-
defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and
shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the
Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such
action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore
international peace and security."

infers that some legal authority for the use of armed force against
Afghanistan or the Taliban was created by the resolutions of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). That is entirely false.

NATO, a regional organization with the goal of restoring and
maintaining the security of the North Atlantic area, resolved on
September 12 2001 that the September 11 attacks were covered by
Article 5 of the Washington Treaty and therefore all NATO members will
consider the September 11 attacks as an armed attack against all NATO
members. [See Box III]

Box III ARTICLE 5 OF THE WASHINGTON TREATY"The Parties agree that an
armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America
shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they
agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise
of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by
Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations will assist the Party
or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in
concert with the other Parties, such actions as it deems necessary,
including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security
of the North Atlantic area. Any such armed attack and all measure
taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the
Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security
Council has taken the measures necessary to respect and maintain
international peace and security."

Although this resolution enabled NATO countries to act collectively,
countries were restricted to action determined by the North Atlantic
Council. The September 12 resolution in clear language barred any
action until further decision by the Council.
"No collective action will be taken by NATO until further
consultations are held and further decisions are made by the North
Atlantic Council." On October 5 2001 NATO at the request of the United
States agreed to take eight measures collectively and individually
including the provision of 'blanket over flight clearances for US.
aircraft and to provide access to ports and airfields to US.
NATO thereby agreed to facilitate actions taken by the US outside the
restrictions of the NATO decision-making process. [Box IV]

The United States has rejected this collective approach and has put
together its own group of 'allies' leaving the US in control of all
aspects of the current bombing of Afghanistan and of any future war
actions including bombings of additional countries. Lloyd Axworthy
correctly described the 'coalition' of which Canada is now an active
member as a "hub-and-spoke arrangement, where direction comes from the
centre with little input from the outside members." (The Globe and
Mail Monday October 8 2001)

Box IV NATO RESOLUTION 5 OCTOBER 2001The October 5 2001 NATO Allies
agreed to:·Enhance intelligence sharing and cooperation, both
bilaterally and in the appropriate NATO bodies, relating to the
threats posed by terrorism and the actions be taken against
it;·Provide, individually or collectively, as appropriate and
according to their capabilities, assistance to Allies and other states
which are or may be subject to increased terrorist threats as a result
of their support for the campaign against terrorism;·Take necessary
measures to provide increased security for facilities of the United
States and other Allies on their territory;·Backfill selected Allied
assets in NATO's area of responsibility that are required to directly
support operations against terrorism;·Provide blanket over flight
clearances for the United States and other Allies' aircraft, in
accordance with the necessary air traffic arrangements and national
procedures, for military flights related to operation against
terrorism;·Provide access for the United States and other Allies to
ports and airfields on the territory of NATO nations for operations
against terrorism, including for refueling, in accordance with
national procedures.·That the Alliance is ready to deploy elements of
its Standing Naval Forces to the Eastern Mediterranean in order to
provide a NATO presence and demonstrate resolve; and·That the Alliance
is similarly ready to deploy elements of its NATO Airborne Early
Warning force to support operations against terrorism.

Article 52 of the Charter restricts regional agencies, including NATO,
to activities consistent with the purposes and principles of the
United Nations. The NATO resolutions cannot override the provision of
the UN Charter.

Yet without authorization from the Security Council the US, UK and
Canada are bombing Afghanistan, and US President Bush threatens to
bomb other countries. These threats and the threats to "starve" the
Taliban are themselves crimes pursuant to the provision of to the
Geneva Convention Protocol 1. (See Box V)


The Geneva Convention Protocol 1 is an absolute prohibition against
attacks and threats of attacks on civilians. [See Box IV] Protocol 1
also prohibits indiscriminate attacks. Indiscriminant attacks are
defined as including: attacks by any method or means that will either
strike military and civilians objects without distinction or cause
death and injury to civilians disproportionate to the "concrete and
direct military advantage anticipated." Reprisals against civilians,
starvation as a method of warfare and attacking or destroying objects
indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as
food, crops, livestock, drinking water and irrigation systems are all
strictly and absolutely prohibited.

Box V THE GENEVA CONVENTION PROTOCOL 1 (The Protocol Additional To the
Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection
of Victims of International Armed Conflicts adopted 8 June 1977 by the
Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of
International Humanitarian Law applicable in Armed Conflicts entry
into force 7 December 1979) begins with an affirmation of the
obligation to refrain from the use of force. The Preamble to Protocol
1 states;"Recalling that every State has the duty, in conformity with
the Charter of the United Nations, to refrain in its international
relations from the threat or use of force against the sovereignty,
territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in
any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United
Nations."Box V (cont'd)Article 51 Protection of the civilian
population1.The civilian population and individual civilians shall
enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military
operation..2.The civilian population as such, as well as individual
civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of
violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the
civilian population are prohibited. 3.Civilians shall enjoy the
protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as they
take a direct part in hostilities. 4.Indiscriminant attacks are
prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:.c. Those which employ a method
or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required
by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature
to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects
without distinction.5.Among others, the following types of attacks are
to be considered indiscriminate; attack by bombardment by any
methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number
of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a
city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentrating
of civilians or civilian objects; attack which may be expected
to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage
to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be
excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage
anticipated.6.Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by
way of reprisals are prohibited.Article 54 Protection of Objects
indispensable to the survival of the civilian population1.Starvation
of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.


Although the international community has not defined terrorism there
are 11 international legal agreements that enable the international
community to take legal actions to suppress terrorism and to prosecute
those responsible for acts of terrorism. [See Box VI]

The European Justice Ministers at their recent conference (Moscow, 4-5
October 2001) called on all European member and observer states to
become Parties to the international treaties on terrorism in
particular the 1999 International Convention for the Suppression of
the Financing of Terrorism.

The September 11 attacks are illegal under these conventions. So is
the war against Afghanistan. Some examples of the illegality of the
attacks against Afghanistan under two of these Conventions follow.

The Convention to Suppress Terrorist Bombings (58 signatories, 29
parties) has been signed and ratified by the UK. Canada and the US
have signed, 12 January 1998 and have not ratified. The Convention to
Suppress Terrorist Bombings defines in Article 24 a terrorist bomber
as a person who unlawfully and intentionally delivers, places,
discharges or detonates a bomb, explosive, lethal or incendiary device
in, into or against a place of public use, a state or government
facility, a public transportation system or an infrastructure facility
with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury or the
destruction of such a place resulting in major economic loss.

This definition would appear to include the person(s) bombing
Afghanistan. The US led attacks on Afghanistan highlight one of the
critical reasons for defining terrorism; to preclude the use of war to
combat terrorism.

The International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of
Terrorism (25 February 2000) by Article 2 makes it an offence to
directly or indirectly provide funds to be used to carry out, "any
other act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a
civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the
hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such
act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to
compel a Government or an international organization to do or to
abstain from doing any act."

14 SEPTEMBER 1963Entry into force: Convention entered into force on
4December1969 Status: 41 signatories; 172 contracting States.
AT THE HAGUE ON 16 DECEMBER 1970Entry into force: The Convention
entered into force on 14 October 1971.Status: 77 signatories; 174
1971Entry into force: The Convention entered into force on 26 January
1973.Status: 60 signatories; 175 contracting States4.PROTOCOL FOR THE
SIGNED AT MONTREAL ON 24 FEBRUARY 1988Entry into force: The Protocol
entered into force on 6August1989.Status: 69 signatories; 107
MATERIALEntry into force: 8 February 1987 Parties: 69Signatories:
OF MARITIME NAVIGATION, 1988Adoption: 10 March 1988 Entry into force:
June 1998Status: 51 signatories, 68 contracting States8.INTERNATIONAL
December 1997 Entry into force: 23 May 2001, in accordance with
article 22 (1).Registration: 23 May 2001, No. 37517.Status:
Signatories: 58, Parties: 29BOX VI (cont'd)9.INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION
AGAINST THE TAKING OF HOSTAGES New York, 17 December 1979 Entry into
force: 3 June 1983, in accordance with article 18(1).Registration: 3
June 1983, No. 21931.Status: Signatories: 39, Parties: 9610.CONVENTION
1973Entry into force: 20 February 1977, in accordance with article 17
(1).Registration: 20 February 1977, No. 15410.Status: Signatories: 25,
FINANCING OF TERRORISM New York, 9 December 1999Not yet in force: (see
article 26).Status: Signatories: 57, Parties


The September 11 attacks are crimes pursuant to national and
international law and many member states have called for these crimes
of terrorism to be brought before the International Criminal Court
(ICC). This is not possible because the ICC does not yet exist. It may
not be possible to prosecute these crimes through the ICC when it
comes into operations because Article 11 of the Rome Statute precludes
prosecutions for offences that took place prior to the statute coming
into operation. However some legal commentators argue that Article 11
is invalid because it is contrary to the General Assembly resolution
#2391 of 26 November 1968 that passed the Convention on the Non-
Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes
Against Humanity.

The Rome Statute (The ICC Treaty) is a multi-lateral treaty approved
by 120 countries on July 17, 1998 and is the constituent statute for
the ICC. (120 voted for, 7 against and 20 abstentions. The US and
China were amongst the 7 countries voting against acceptance of the
Rome Statute on 17 [sic] July 1998)

The International Criminal Court will begin operation when 60
Countries ratify the Rome Statute. As of October 12 2001 43 countries
have ratified and 139 countries have signed the Rome Statute. The US
despite significant involvement in the drafting of the Rome Statute is
the only Western democracy now opposed. The US Congress recently re-
introduced the bill that will ban any kind of cooperation and military
assistance with Member States of the UN that have ratified the Rome
Statute and obstruct the participation of the US in UN peacekeeping
operations. The same bill will authorize the President of the US to
use "all the necessary measures" to liberate any US citizens detained
by the ICC.

This is in stark contrast to the past US record of support to
international criminal courts. The US spearheaded the Nuremberg and
Tokyo Tribunals and the creation of the International Criminal
Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.
The Rome Statute defines three categories of international crimes
committed during violent conflicts between and within states: war
crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. The Rome Statute also
creates the International Criminal Court to be a, "permanent
institution and shall have the power to exercise its jurisdiction over
persons for the most serious crimes of international concern, as
referred to in this [Rome] statute, and shall be complementary to
national criminal jurisdictions."(Article 1) The International
Criminal Court will have jurisdiction to prosecute these crimes when
the state(s) having jurisdiction are unable or unwilling to do so.
Crimes of aggression will eventually be within the jurisdiction of the
International Criminal Court.

The US still vigorously opposes the creation of an International
Criminal Court. However, the European community vigorously supports
the creation of an International Criminal Court with jurisdiction over
a broader range of crimes. On 26 September 2001 the Council of Europe
parliamentary assembly voted in favour of expanding the mandate of the
International Criminal Court to allow it to prosecute perpetrators of
terrorist acts. By a nearly unanimous vote (148 to 1 abstention) urged
European governments to impose sanctions on countries providing safe
haven to terrorists.

The war against Afghanistan also violates the provisions of the Rome
Statute war crimes provisions Article 8. [See Box VII]

Box VII ROME STATUTE article 8.2.b.iv"Intentionally launching an
attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of
life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or
widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment
which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and
direct overall military advantage anticipated;"and 8.2.b.v"Attacking
or bombarding, by whatever means, town, villages, dwellings or
buildings which are undefended and which are not military
objectives;"and 8.2.b.xxv"Intentionally using starvation of civilians
as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to
their survival, including willfully impeding relief supplies as
provided for under the Geneva Conventions;"


The September 11 attacks in New York were crimes both nationally and
internationally. Murder, highjacking, destruction of property are
crimes under the national laws of the many countries whose nationals
were killed and are crimes pursuant to a wide range of international

The bombing of Afghanistan and the resulting deaths, injuries,
starvation and displacement of Afghanistan people and the destruction
of property including the destruction of necessary infrastructure is
illegal. The use of force to topple to Taliban government is also

While the rhetoric justifying war raids on Afghanistan (and possibly
other countries) suggests there are no laws or law enforcement
mechanisms that can respond to the September 11 attacks. That is not
true and flies in the face of both international law and it's
underlying policies.

When the US entered Germany in 1945, it was not suggested that
millions of German civilians be stripped, gassed and bulldozed into
mass graves in retaliation for the holocaust. The crimes that had been
committed were so enormous that to even think of retaliation in like
kind was unimaginably barbaric. Instead the Nuremberg trials were
held, setting up the rule of law as the most powerful opponent of rule
by military force.

The world community has, through the United Nations and regional
agencies worked to "save succeeding generations from the scourge of
war" by o Prohibiting the use of force as a means of settling
international disputes (The Charter); and, o Developing by global
consensus, minimum standards of human rights and international laws
that criminalize the crimes most intolerable to the world community
including: crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of

There have been many reminders during the past 50 years of the urgent
need to develop laws and to eschew violence as a response to crime. A
reminder that the use of force (retaliatory bombing in the following
example) contributes to the escalation and not the deterrence of
terrorism occurred subsequent to April 1986 when two US servicemen
were killed when a bomb exploded in a Berlin nightclub. The US,
believing Libyans to be responsible, retaliated by bombing Libya
killing 36 civilians including the year old daughter of Libyan leader
Moamar Khadafy. Twenty months later, in December 1988 Pan Am flight
103 exploded over Lockerbie Scotland killing 270 people. Three Libyans
were subsequently tried by a Scottish Court and located in the
Netherlands. Two of the accused were convicted and one was acquitted.

Mechanisms for global enforcement of existing national and
international laws exist as evidenced in part by the above mentioned
Resolutions directing all members of the United Nations, in the case
of the Security Council resolutions, and all NATO members, in the case
of the NATO resolutions, to cooperate in the exchange of information
and resources to enforce existing laws.

Member states to the UN are obliged to participate in all aspects of a
global investigation of the September 11 attacks that would lead to a
process of indictment, extradition, prosecution, trial and punishment
of those guilty. The cooperative directives from the Security Council
also relate to effecting the coordination of measures to prevent
future terrorist attacks.

Prosecutions of the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks could
take place in the national courts of either the US or a number of
other affected states. Alternately, the Security Council can create an
ad hoc International Criminal Tribunal on the model of the existing
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia to conduct
the global investigation of the September 11 attacks and the resulting
prosecutions and trials.
The Security Council has the power to order the creation of an
international military force to carry out the requisite

Canadians must insist that all governments adhere to the restraints of
law. Citizens must act to ensure that the people of Afghanistan have
the security and rights to life provided for by international law and
enjoyed by Canadians. Canadians must act to ensure that the people in
Afghanistan are afforded legal protections against death injury,
starvations, displacement and deprivation of the necessaries of life.

Written by Gail Davidson a Member of the Law Society of British
Columbia and founder of Lawyers' Rights Watch Canada "LAWYERS' RIGHTS
WATCH CANADA" October 13, 2001

Assistance by: Diana Davidson C.M., B.ed, LLB, Founder of People's Law
School (editing);
Dr. Mark Battersby (Philosophy); (Technical assistance) and Monisha
Martins (Research assistance)

"Fascism should rightly be called corporatism as it is a merge of
state and corporate power"...Benito Mussolini

by Gail Davidson, lawyer




Arithmetics of Disdain,

At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act"

It is noteworthy that the State Department's list of global terrorist incidents for 2002 worldwide failed to list the car bombing attack on Hobeika and his party.... But Listed a small Hand Grenade thrown at a U.S. franchise in the middle of the night when the place was closed, empty and no one was hurt? The White House wanted to ensure the terror attack on Mr. Elie Hobeika, and his party of three young men with families, was censored from the report. The reason was simple: this attack ultimately had Washington's and Israel's fingerprints all over it....Given the actual climate of political cacophonies, deceit, deception and intrigue in Lebanon of today, Lebanon of the LIARS of NEOCONVILLE, it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Mr. Elie Hobeika was a visionary Leader and a Hero.Lebanon will probably never know a Leader of this caliber.My dear friend ELIE, you have been reborn on January 24th 2002.Heroes are reborn the day of their Martyrdom .ELIE, you are more alive today, than many living political corpses,walking and talking in Beirut Lebanon every day, until resurrection.At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act"- G. Orwell A U.S. intelligence source revealed to me, that in the world of intelligence "carve out" subcontracts such confusion is often the case with "plausible deniability" being a foremost concern in ALL covert operations, especially in Elie Hobeika's case on January 24th 2002, & Hariri's Feb. 14th 2005... Notwithstanding Jacques CHIRAC's gesticulations and false sorrow for the loss of his "friend" Rafic HARIRI, he has been regularly organizing official meetings in Paris for Asef Shawkat with his services to secure SYRIA for and with Assef Shawkat,....

The propensity of governments to create secrets out of the obvious is one of the more tedious aspects of international relations. But this secret is not obvious, and it is not trivial. Though it is true, and I hold the KEY.

Fabrications, LIES , False Flag operations, CIA and MOSSAD.It has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt,that ALL stories which came out immediately after the Assassination of Mr.Elie Hobeika, Fares Sweidan,Dimitri Ajram, and Waleed El-Zein, were completely &utterly FALSE. It was a pure fabrication by the KILLERS;AND the CIA'S Foreign Denial and Deception Committee (FDDC),to cover their tracks. Standard operating procedure...101I mean by that, the stories relating to Elie trying to find IMAD Moughnieh, the alleged attempted contacts with CIA, MOSSAD, etc. , the missing Iranian diplomats, the 9 most wanted by CIA, whose names have been circulated then,on purpose by CIA, to 7 ministers in the Lebanese Government, etc. [names which CIA has completely forgotten now,one of them has proven since to be a CIA asset himself...] ALL these were a tortuous web of lies to cover the tracks of the Murderers of CIA, MOSSAD, and their Syro-Lebanese tools.Special ongoing Investigation.Oct. , 2007- On September 15, 2001, just four days after the 9-11 attacks,CIA Director George Tenet provided President [sic] Bush with a Top Secret"Worldwide Attack Matrix"-a virtual license to kill targets deemed to be a threat to the United States in some 80 countries around the world. The Tenet plan, which was subsequently approved by Bush, essentially reversed the executive orders of four previous U.S. administrations that expressly prohibited political assassinations. Mr. Elie Hobeika will be the first target of the US administration, to pave the way for its Iraq Invasion .It planned to directly control the "Energy Basin" and ALL the OIL Transportation routes,from Pipelines to the Maritime avenues and choke points in the Gulf areas, and from central Asia to Mauritania and beyond.But most of all, Mr. Elie Hobeika will be made to pay dearly with his life,for daring to change his politics and views, after experiencing first hand,THE BRUTALITY OF THE ISRAELIS AND THE AMERICANS ,and their CULTURE OF VIOLENCE , Intrigue, murder & very bad Politics.The BUSH+CHENEY Energy MATRIX, coming to a place near you SOON.The awakening is near. It will be like a hurricane passing with untold fury.Mark my Words: .....

THE assassination of yet another Lebanese MP — the seventh anti-Syrian figure to be murdered since the slaying of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in February 2005 — has brought Lebanon to the brink of a catastrophe. It threatens to be even more devastating than the 1975-90 civil war. The country’s survival as an independent unified state is now at stake. The divide between anti-Syrian and pro-Syrian blocs is now unbridgeable.

As to fears of fresh civil war, it is already a reality. With ministers and pro-government MPs being assassinated, the government even more besieged than the one in Iraq, surviving MPs in hiding, who can talk of political normality? Lebanon is at war with itself. How long before that translates into general armed conflict is anyone’s guess. It would be naive to imagine that Ghanem’s killing will be the last. The anti-Syrian majority in Parliament is now razor-thin. Those behind this and the other killings are obviously determined to bring down the government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora by the physical elimination of its parliamentary majority.

There can be no doubt that more assassinations are planned and will be attempted. If that happens and the Lebanese government falls as a result and is replaced by a pro-Syrian government, it will trigger a wave of retaliatory violence — against Hezbollah, against the Shiite community and against pro-Syrian figures. Open warfare waits in the wings.

Syrian protestations that it had nothing to do with Antoine Ghanem’s murder and the others may be true. It is quite possible that the killings are wholly internal, the work of pro-Syrian elements inside Lebanon who want power back. There are certainly some who do not want a new president elected to replace Emile Lahoud. It is even possible that Israelis were behind the killings, intent on destabilization and making Syria appear the villain — possible but unlikely; they have much to lose if a Hezbollah-dominated, pro-Syrian government were installed in Beirut.

The problem is that very few believe Syria’s innocence. They ask the question “who benefits?” and, in the case of each assassination, come up with the same answer: Damascus and its clients in Lebanon. That belief robs Syria of having an acceptable role in Lebanon for a long time to come. The majority of Lebanese want their sovereignty to be absolute; with no interference from anyone — be they Syrian, Israeli, Iranian, American or whatever. That dream, however, is being car-bombed to oblivion....

Forget what you've heard about objectivity. Not even cameras are objective. To nearly everything you analyze (and report on) you bring notions based on - but not limited to - your class, gender, skin color, ethnicity, native language, upbringing, education, religion, culture, playground experiences, political orientation, the influences of people you trust and things about the way our brains work that nobody even knows yet. Like sponges, we absorb stereotypes and clichés about other people's attitudes and behavior which skews our perceptions in ways we don't even realize. So don't fool yourself into believing in objectivity. The best you can achieve is fairness, and that's a tough path to stick to as well.

And then we'd have a talk about the textbook description of objectivity, which is that "every story has two sides," a pernicious dualistic myth that profoundly undermines what is supposed to be a search for truth....

The even greater danger with these dark clouds forming over Lebanon is for the region. With Syria’s links to Iran, Iran’s links to Hezbollah, rising tension over Iran’s alleged nuclear ambitions, there is a chain explosion waiting to happen. An Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, an American attack on Iran, a Syrian attack on Israel, more Lebanese assassinations: One could trigger another. The temperature is fast rising on the Middle East’s northern rim — and it is near flash point.


Petition USA

Dear Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, , thanks for your
great work defending the USA Constitution, with
between Churches and State and Free Speech,
and my questions are:1) since most likely the Senate

will approve Michael Mukasey as the new A.G.of

the United States, and since as you know,he is an

orthodox Israeli-American and with dual citizenship,
American and Israeli, , NYT Sept.
18.07 "Washington outsider with many sides"
for info on Mukasey as Judge of the WTC-
Insurance 9/11 case , will he respect other
religions exactly thesame as his?2) since he is an

ordained rabbi within his orthodox community,will his partners get treatment better or different in any way
from the one you or I or anybody else would get from

him in the United States of America?

3) what happens to all the Security Contracts
and Military deals he and his son Marc are
doing with the Companies and Interests of
Giuliani Partners and other associates ?

4) what happens with all the deals they
worked on in his son's law firm,
Bracewell&Giuliani?since Bracewell&Giuliani has

offices in the South Asia, like in Kazakhstan,a big

oil supplier ruled by an extreme undemocratic leader,
Nazarbayev, will the Mukasey's and Giuliani's
get special deals? with no supervision? political
donations? will the actual law firm of Mukasey
get special deals too? will anybody ask ? or will
they just say yes :blindly?

5) Michael Mukasey

and his son Marc are strong AIPAC supporters ,

but will anyone in the Senate ask anything about their relationship to these political-military-religious-financial
and foreign groups? we know that no one
will,but is that right? isn't special treatment?
the A.G.?

6) Chairman,this powerful military-religious-
financial group , of which Michael Mukasey is
a leader, will have unprecedented influence in
the Justice Dpt. ,White House and Congress,
not to mention over the average taxpayer,
and since many members of the orthodox
community to which he belongs are diamond,
gold,jewelry,insurance ,real estate and tobacco
dealers and wholesalers while claiming Tax
Exemption due to religious condition,will his
appointment stop all the Investigations of the
IRS and Justice well as Commerce,etc.?
and back taxes?
do average Americans have a guarantee of
equal treatment?
when we start getting prosecuted for asking
questions,what recourse do we have ? any ?
and since orthodox Mukasey will most likely
install many members of his organized religious
group into office,will we be forced to request
help from the same community like his with
the special privilege?7) Judge Mukasey was in

charge of the 9/11/01 Trial case between the

leaseholders of the WTC,SIlverstein-Goldman-

Pacific-etc., and the 23 Insurance Companies these

new leaseholders called just days before 9/11 to
open dozens of policies over everything in
the Towers, services,leases,businesses,contracts,
profits,hardware,you name it,their premiums
were millions of dollars a week, didn't make
any business sense,unless they knew what was
going to happen a few days later ,and
everybody in N.Y. and around the world
was waiting for answers from the Trial ,
and then Judge Mukasey put a lid on the
Trial and no news came out, NOTHING !!!!
and everybody asked why ?, if it is a patriotic
case,why no news at all ?why the secrecy ?
why Judge Mukesay didn't want anybody in
America to know everything about Silverstein
and his dozens of policies? , then we also found
out that then N.Y.State A.G. Eliot Spitzer
wrote a Friend of the Court brief supporting
Silverstein,the AG siding with one of the
parties!, and the Judge and Spitzer started to
push the Insurance Companies to settle for 2
events,a total of 7 billion dollars to Silverstein
and his partners, many of the Insurance
Companies refused because they knew
something was not right and eventually they
settled on 4.6 billion dollars for Silverstein ,
but we still never got any details in any
newspaper ,radio or TV,NOTHING ! I WOULD
but we do know that no one will ask him
anything in D.C., he and his Orthodox
Congregation partners rule,after all they all
go to Israel together and share Religious
Ceremonies with Kissinger, Chertoff,
Bloomberg ,Silverstein,etc., and yet we hear
S. Schumer and other neocons saying to the
media that they want to learn more from
the man !8) Chairman,this new A.G. will have
unprecedented influence over President Bush
and VP Cheney,since he is the only one that
can prosecute the 2,is it wise to have a
member of a foreign religious-political group
having so much power over the President and
the Vice-President of the United States of
America ? safe ? smart? patriotic?We know that MR..Mukasey was selected by
Joshua Bolten and approved by Senator
Schumer and others,so since "they" run
Washington,it's a done deal ,hearing Senator
Schumer telling the Media how wonderful
Mukasey is and that his nomination cuts
down on pressure on the White House, do
they extorted a deal from the President:
Our orthodox candidate and we stop asking
for White House U.S. Attorney papers and
information?is that why Bush looks so depressed?

is that how Schumer,Bolton, Emanuel,Specter,
Lieberman and Bloomberg are going to run
this country?
because clearly with Mukasey as A.G.,they
run this country lock,stock and barrel,it's
that how our Constitutional Rights end ?
Extortion of the President of the United
hearing Schumer and Specter, it's clear that it
was all about getting the Christians out of the
Justice Dpt. and installing the neocon orthodox
in, is that how they do it ?A partner of Mukasey

as adviser to Giuliani , the neocon Pedhoretz,

has repeatedly pushed with Pr.Bush to bomb Iran,

to attack, and since Sen. Lieberman and Sen. Kyl

are pushing to brand Iran's Military a terrorist

Organization, is this the beginning of a concerted

effort to push for war? it's important to remember
all this , because in 2002 and 2003 all these
neocons with Sen.Schumer,S.Coleman,
Sen.Boxer,R.Emanuel,Kristol,Safire, Wolfowitz,
Whitman, Kaplan,Kellner,Gutman,Berman,
Sulzberger,Murdoch,Karmazin, ex-sec.Cohen,
were pushing for war every day on the media
and yet now they are attacking anyone that
mentions it, they are warning elected officials
like R.Moran that to mention these facts is
anti-this and anti-that and "watch it ", they
are bullying any one that mentions what happen
before the USA went to Iraq,and worst: they
insist now on their media that only Bush-
Cheney-Rice-Rumsfeld are responsible , that
no one else pushed for this war:

it looks like its not the first time, it sounds
like they always pull the same trick: they push
for war,financed with their Hedge Funds and
then with the media they erase any links to
themselves, this is criminal; to push for war
and then to hide and blamethe Christians
only,that's evil and SHOWS LOTS OF
COUNTRY! to confirm an organized
religious-political-military from a foreign sect
and laws to Attorney General is
un-Constitutional,illegal, un-American and
goes against the core of the USA values,
thousands died to defend the USA
Constitution from foreign religions, how can
the Senate now approve a religious leader ?
will they even ask this question? will they
commit High Treason ?when you look at these

incompetent and criminal decisions against the

Rule of Law and the Declaration of Independence,
how can Taxpayers petition the Government
for any rights?Thanks for your great work defending
America from foreign and domestic enemies,
in my humble opinion, this situation
looks to me like occupation and foreign control,
and to you ?America knows that George Washington,

Lincoln and all the Founding Fathers would be proud of
your defense of the USA Constitution against
High Treason and High Crimes,


US Citizens


NO COMMENT ....... "For Now..."

Saakashvili Ordered me to Get Rid of Patarkatsishvili’ – Okruashvili

Ex-Defense Minister Irakli Okruashvili has made yet another startling allegation against his former ally, President Saakashvili. The president, he said, had personally ordered him to liquidate Badri Patarkatsishvili, a business tycoon.
Speaking live on Imedi TV’s talk show On the Air late on September 25, Okruashvili said: “Saakashvili told me that we should get rid of him [Patarkatsishvili], in the same way as happened to Rafik Hariri, the former Lebanese prime minister, who was killed in a car bomb attack.”
“In July 2005,” Okruashvili said, “Saakashvili asked me: what did I think about getting rid of one person… - Badri Patarkatsishvili? And then he [Saakashvili] outlined a very detailed plan on how to get rid of him.”
Okruashvili continued: “It was absolutely clear to me that it was a trap for me as well, because they would have gotten rid of me as well after getting rid of Patarkatsishvili.”
He said in response he told Saakashvili that he needed time to think about it.
“Meanwhile, I met with one person who at that time was working with the Americans and told him about the president’s proposal,” Okruashvili said. “I did it in the hope that the information would have been passed on to the Americans… It was Zaza Gogava [now Chief-of-Staff of the Georgian armed forces] However it did not work. Because after a month Saakashvili again repeated his demand about getting rid of Patarkatsishvili.”
“Then I met with another person in Turkey, whose identity I can not reveal. He also has close links with the Americans. He's not a Georgian citizen. I told him about Saakashvili’s plan. This information, it seemed, was delivered to the Americans, because since then Saakashvili never talked with me about getting rid of Patarkatsishvili.”President Saakashvili, who is currently in New York for the UN General Assembly Session, has yet to comment on his former ally’s allegations.


Irakli Okruashvili, ex-defense minister and once President Saakashvili’s closest ally, has accused the president of engaing in “anti-state steps” and “ordering murders.”
In his first public statement since he quit the government last November, Okruashvili also finally announced the launch of his political party – Movement for United Georgia. He refused to take question after his ten-minute speech, but said he planned to give further details and “answer all questions” during a TV appearance planned for later on Tuesday.
“I will definitely speak more on these crimes, which were masterminded by the authorities,” he said. Okruashvili added: “I was ordered by Saakashvili several times to liquidate certain influential and important people, which I refused to do.” He gave no further details.
There has been considerable speculation that “a war of compromising materials” would precede Okruashvili’s political comeback and the unveiling of his new opposition party.
Okruashvili said at the news conference in his party's headquarters in downtown Tbilisi that “fascist trends” and “anti-state steps undertaken by the authorities” had convinced him and his co-thinkers to set up the new movement. He also suggested that it hadn't been easy to launch the party.
People, he said, “are terrorized” because of “repression.” “Those with dissenting opinions are deemed ‘enemies of the state’ and the government is refusing to hold a dialogue with them,” he said.
This, he said, had made it difficult to convince people to engage in public life.
Okruashvili said that the anti-corruption campaign was “unreal.” The prisons, he said, were full of petty criminals, while corruption continued to thrive among “top level officials, Saakashvili’s inner circle and his family.”
“Three years ago when I was Interior Minister,” Okruashvili said, “I arrested Temur Alasania, the president’s uncle, for extortion of USD 200,000. I, however, had to release him on the president’s insistence.”
He also accused the authorities, and personally Saakashvili, of, as he put it, “a deliberate anti-Orthodox Church campaign” and “of fighting against Georgian traditions and values.”
“Saakashvili has an inner hatred of the Georgian Orthodox Church,” Okruashvili said. “The Georgian church is the most respected institution in Georgia. [Because of this] he [Saakashvili] perceives the Church as his main competitor. While in his inner circle, I often heard him talking about splitting the Church and discrediting the clergy.”
He also said that there was “a clear attempt” by the Saakashvili administration “to re-write Georgia’s history, as if nothing Georgian existed before the Rose Revolution, and everything new is being created by Saakashvili.”
Okruashvili also made an obvious attempt to appeal to other walks of life by saying that the older generation, those over 50, had been “neglected and humiliated.”
Internally displaced persons from Abkhazia and South Ossetia, he said, “were not regarded as human beings during ex-President Shevardnadze’s regime and this trend has continued in the Saakashvili regime as well.”
He also criticized the authorities’ policies towards the secessionist regions.
“We were one step away from reclaiming one of our lost territories,” Okruashvili said, apparently referring to South Ossetia.
Several months before his resignation from the cabinet, Okruashvili said that he had planned to celebrate the 2007 New Year in Tskhinvali, the capital of breakaway South Ossetia. Commentators said that Saakashvili’s decision to move Okruashvili last November from the Defense Ministry to the Ministry of Economy was largely because of Okruashvili’s perceived hawkish stance on South Ossetia.
In his speech on September 25, Okruashvili said that “only Saakashvili’s weakness, inability and fear” had foiled plans to reclaim the secessionist region. He also said Saakashvili was too weak to take an unspecified “historic decision.”
He also criticized Tbilisi’s decision to create the provisional South Ossetia administration, led by Dimitri Sanakoev. Okruashvili said Sanakoev had no respect and authority among the population of the region. He also said that installing Sanakoev was “an imaginary attempt” to unite the country.
Okruashvili explained his decision to “quietly” quit the government without voicing his discontent was because of, as he put it, his sense of “civil responsibility.”
“Army officers, who are still my friends, asked me to do it quietly,” he said and added that by doing so he had denied the country’s enemies an opportunity to speculate on a split within the government.
Okruashvili admitted that he shared “the responsibility for some mistakes because I was also once part of this government.”
“I, however, have done nothing but good for my country when in government,” he added. “So any attempt to discredit me will fail.”
Towards the end of his speech, he implied that he might have presidential ambitions.
“Georgia will be united only if it has a president who doesn't humiliate and insult its own people,” Okruashvili said.
Throughout his speech, Okruashvili's fellow party members stood beside him. They include: lawmakers Tea Tlashadze, Ketevan Makharashvili, Koka Guntsadze, Gia Tortladze and Gia Tsagareishvili; former Deputy Defense Minister Levan Nikolaishvili and a lawyer, Eka Beselia.
Two former journalists from Rustavi 2 TV station, Nana Lezhava and Natia Lazashvili, were also there. Both quit the TV station shortly after Rustavi 2 changed hands last November following Okruashvili’s resignation.