International News
See other International News Articles
Title: Pompeo Arranges Mass Starvation of Iranian People
Source:
Another Day in The Empire
URL Source: https://kurtnimmo.blog/2018/10/04/p ... -starvation-of-iranian-people/
Published: Oct 5, 2018
Author: Kurt Nimmo
Post Date: 2018-10-05 09:06:51 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 872
Comments: 9
Prior to George W. Bush illegally rolling into Iraq based on a passel of lies, Bill Clinton oversaw Papa Bush’s medieval sanctions on the country. The sanctions were not intended to stop Saddam Hussein from building WMDs as we were told by The New York Times and The Washington Post. They were put in place to starve the Iraqi people, deny basic medical supplies, and turn the country into a failed state. The process resulted in the death of half a million Iraqi children. Madeline Albright, Clinton’s Secretary of State, went on national television and said the murder of 500,000 Iraqi children was a price worth paying. Now we have Mike Pompeo, Trump’s secretary of state, demanding similar sanctions imposed on Iran. On Wednesday, Pompeo said the US will terminate a treaty with Iran put into place in 1955, two years after the CIA engineered a coup ousting the democratically elected leader Mohammad Mosaddegh. The long forgotten Treaty of Amity was brought up by the International Court of Justice when it ruled the US must lift sanctions that affect the import of humanitarian goods and products. The Hague said in a preliminary decision the US must “remove, by means of its choosing, any impediments arising from” sanctions that affect exports to Iran of medicine, medical devices, food, agricultural commodities and equipment necessary to ensure the safety of civil aviation, according to a report at Fox News. The ICJ’s attempt to prevent the Trump administration from engaging in massive crimes against humanity, according to Pompeo, is “meritless” and accused the international court of “attempting to interfere with the sovereign rights of the United States to take lawful actions necessary to protect our national security and abusing the ICJ for political and propaganda purposes.” Trump and his top neocon adviser John Bolton insist the International Criminal Court has no authority. “As far as America is concerned, the ICC has no jurisdiction, no legitimacy, and no authority,” Trump told the General Assembly at the United Nations. “The ICC claims near-universal jurisdiction over the citizens of every country, violating all principles of justice, fairness, and due process. We will never surrender America’s sovereignty to an unelected, unaccountable, global bureaucracy.” The US is not a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Bill Clinton signed the Rome Statue in 2000, but it wasn’t sent to the Senate to be ratified. The Bush administration sent a note informing the Secretary-General that it would not ratify the Rome Statute and did not recognize any obligation toward it. Like the Trump administration, the Bush administration openly demonstrated hostility toward the idea of holding nations accountable for war crimes. The US backed up this defiance by passing the American Service Members Protection Act in 2002 ahead of the Iraq invasion. The law includes a provision to “use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court.” Additionally, the act permits the president to order military action against the Court, which resulted in critics calling it the “Hague Invasion Act.” However, the Bush administration and its neocons decided the ICC would be of use on a selective basis—against its official roster of enemies. The former Bush UN ambassador (by recess appointment) and current top Trump administration neocon John Bolton declared war on the ICC after it announced it would investigate war crimes in Afghanistan. Bolton said the US will level sanctions against the international organization if it proceeds. Trump and Bolton are clearing the decks in preparation of military action against Iran. They would like to see a return of brutal sanctions used for over a decade in Iraq. Iran understands what this means: rapid deterioration of health, targeting water purification (a primary objective in Iraq), communications, agriculture, and medical infrastructure. The US stated sanctions would remain in place even if Saddam Hussein decided to cooperate with the United Nations, thus demonstrating the sanctions and subsequent second invasion were not about WMDs and unfounded threats to America. The objective was to destroy Iraq, kill its people, and reduce the country to failed state status. Neocon “creative destruction” is focused on making certain Iran does not pose a challenge to the hegemonic rule of the United States and Israel. Both Israel and the fossilized Sunni-Wahhabi emirates in the Persian Gulf avidly support destroying Iran and killing millions of its people.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
The Hague said in a preliminary decision the US must “remove, by means of its choosing, any impediments arising from” sanctions that affect exports to Iran of medicine, medical devices, food, agricultural commodities and equipment necessary to ensure the safety of civil aviation, according to a report at Fox News. The ICJ’s attempt to prevent the Trump administration from engaging in massive crimes against humanity, according to Pompeo, is “meritless” and accused the international court of “attempting to interfere with the sovereign rights of the United States to take lawful actions necessary to protect our national security and abusing the ICJ for political and propaganda purposes.” Trump and his top neocon adviser John Bolton insist the International Criminal Court has no authority. “As far as America is concerned, the ICC has no jurisdiction, no legitimacy, and no authority,” Trump told the General Assembly at the United Nations. “The ICC claims near-universal jurisdiction over the citizens of every country, violating all principles of justice, fairness, and due process. We will never surrender America’s sovereignty to an unelected, unaccountable, global bureaucracy.” The US is not a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Bill Clinton signed the Rome Statue in 2000, but it wasn’t sent to the Senate to be ratified. The Bush administration sent a note informing the Secretary-General that it would not ratify the Rome Statute and did not recognize any obligation toward it. Like the Trump administration, the Bush administration openly demonstrated hostility toward the idea of holding nations accountable for war crimes. The US backed up this defiance by passing the American Service Members Protection Act in 2002 ahead of the Iraq invasion. The law includes a provision to “use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court.” Additionally, the act permits the president to order military action against the Court, which resulted in critics calling it the “Hague Invasion Act.” The ICJ has already met reality in The Nicaragua Case, or more formally, Case concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, 1986 ICJ Reports 14. Decide whatever they may, the ICJ must refer their decision to the Security Council for enforcement. At the Security Council, the United States may simply veto whatever they choose, just because they feel like it. That's one of the perqs of being a permanent member of the Security Council. Charter of the United Nations Article 94 “1. Each Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of the International Court of Justice in any case to which it is a party. 2. If any party to a case fails to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court, the other party may have recourse to the Security Council, which may, if it deems necessary, make recommendations or decide upon measures to be taken to give effect to the judgment.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States The United States refused to participate in the merits phase of the proceedings, but the Court found that the US refusal did not prevent it from deciding the case. The Court also rejected the United States defense that its action constituted collective self-defense. The United States argued that the Court did not have jurisdiction, with U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Jeane Kirkpatrick dismissing the Court as a "semi-legal, semi-juridical, semi-political body, which nations sometimes accept and sometimes don't." The United States had signed the treaty accepting the Court's decision as binding, but with the exception that the court would not have the power to hear cases based on multilateral treaty obligations unless it involved all parties to the treaty affected by that decision or the United States specially agreed to jurisdiction. The court found that it was obliged to apply this exception and refused to take on claims by Nicaragua based on the United Nations Charter and Organization of American States charter, but concluded that it could still decide the case based on customary international law obligations with 11-4 majority. After five vetoes in the Security Council between 1982 and 1985 of resolutions concerning the situation in Nicaragua, the United States made one final veto on 28 October 1986 (France, Thailand, and United Kingdom abstaining) of a resolution calling for full and immediate compliance with the Judgement. When a similar but crucially non-binding resolution was brought before the United Nations General Assembly on 3 November it was passed. Only El Salvador and Israel voted with the U.S. against it. El Salvador's ruling junta was at that time receiving substantial funding and military advisement from the U.S., which was aiming to crush a Sandinista-like revolutionary movement by the FMLN. In spite of this resolution, the U.S. still chose not to pay the fine.
Iran has no right to trade with the United States. And being a declared, sworn enemy of the United States, Iran has no right to expect anything but treatment as the enemy they have declared themselves to be. Iran is a democracy: the people there determine who they vote for. They vote for the government they have. It represents the will of those people, just as Hitler represented the will of the German people, and Mussolini represented the will of the Italians. There's no reason for us to pretend that there is some sort of disconnect between the Iranian people and their elected government. Iran is not a dictatorship, it's an elected mullahcracy. No reason to not cut them off.
The United States has to be very careful when signing or entering into international treaties and then electing to ignore their responsibilities that may apply to it. It is my understanding that when the US enters into treaties, that we actually do have subject matter and personal jurisdiction to hear the case and that we don't necessarily have to have the ICC involved. It is why our federal courts exist so that we can sue foreign governments like China and their appointed leaders. This brings back memories of when I was sitting inside a federal courtroom back in the Springtime of 2001. For 9 hours I had watched while Indonesian member James Riady was being deposed to answer to questions about the Clinton scandal involving taking of money and gifts from foreign sources and withholding that information from the FEC. https://harvardlawreview.org/2014/01/limits-on-the-treaty-power/
people there determine who they vote for. They vote for the government they have. It represents the will of those people, just as Hitler represented the will of the German people, and Mussolini represented the will of the Italians. Duly elected wahhabi terrorist.
You're never going to be happy with American government. I'd suggest you find a new hobby, because tracking politics is not going to fulfill you. You're just always going to be frustrated and bitter. The country is very rapidly lining up almost exactly in accordance with my own political desiderata. It's not doing that for you. And it won't.
just always going to be frustrated and bitter. The country is very rapidly lining up almost exactly Your totalitarian global police nanny state government is becoming less popular every day. Cry for yourself, you're losing. Hoooray! #winning
The United States never signed up for the ICC or International Criminal Court. Slick Willie signed but never submitted it to the senate for ratification. The court at issue here is the ICJ or the International Court of Justice. https://www.cfr.org/explainer-video/united-states-and-icj The United States and the ICJ Council on Foreign Relations
Losing? Moi? I’m seeing a Supreme Court installed that will overturn Roe v Wade. I’m seeing tariffs imposed on China. I’m seeing treaties cancelled with Iran, and treaties established with North Korea. I’m seeing the politics line up for a wall. I don’t see myself losing on anything I care about. Seems like winning to the horizon to me. Oh, and we’re making friends with Russia and making NAFTA work for us. And rectifying the situation in Israel. I’m pretty happy.
The US may never have signed up or agreed to be involved with the ICC but the UN has . And the US is connected with the UN making the UN an armleg of the US. Therefore, the US with the Us Dept of Justice does have a nexus to the ICC. https://www.afghanistan-analysts.org/ferocious-attack-on-icc-washington-threatens-court-if-it-investigates-alleged-us-war-crimes-in-afghanistan/
The long forgotten Treaty of Amity was brought up by the International Court of Justice when it ruled the US must lift sanctions that affect the import of humanitarian goods and products.
Chapter XIV — The International Court of Justice
Article 94 establishes the duty of all UN members to comply with decisions of the court involving them. If parties do not comply, the issue may be taken before the Security Council for enforcement action. There are obvious problems with such a method of enforcement. If the judgment is against one of the permanent five members of the Security Council or its allies, any resolution on enforcement would then be vetoed. That occurred, for example, after the Nicaragua case, when Nicaragua brought the issue of the United States' noncompliance with the court's decision before the Security Council. Furthermore, if the Security Council refuses to enforce a judgment against any other state, there is no method of forcing the state to comply. Furthermore, the most effective form to take action for the Security Council, coercive action under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, can be justified only if international peace and security are at stake. The Security Council has never done that so far.
U.S. defense and response
#2. To: Deckard (#0)
#3. To: nolu chan (#1)
(Edited)
The United States had signed the treaty accepting the Court's decision as binding, but with the exception that the court would not have the power to hear cases based on multilateral treaty obligations unless it involved all parties to the treaty affected by that decision or the United States specially agreed to jurisdiction. The court found that it was obliged to apply this exception and refused to take on claims by Nicaragua based on the United Nations Charter and Organization of American States charter, but concluded that it could still decide the case based on customary international law obligations with 11-4 majority.
#4. To: Vicomte13, Boy Muhammad, Donald of Arabia (#2)
#5. To: hondo68 (#4)
#6. To: Vicomte13, getting happier every minute (#5)
You're never going to be happy with American government
#7. To: goldilucky (#3)
we actually do have subject matter and personal jurisdiction to hear the case and that we don't necessarily have to have the ICC involved.
December 23, 2011 The United States has long had an uneasy relationship with the International Court of Justice, which primarily arbitrates legal disputes among UN member nations that recognize its jurisdiction. The United States withdrew from the court’s compulsory jurisdiction in 1986 after the court ruled it owed Nicaragua war reparations.
#8. To: hondo68 (#6)
#9. To: nolu chan (#7)
(Edited)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]