Menu



error This forum is not active, and new posts may not be made in it.
PromoteFacebookTwitter!
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
4/12/2018 11:07:38 AM



Trump Challenges Russia: “Get Ready” to Shoot Down Missiles Fired at Syria

April 11, 2018 at 6:33 am

Following overnight speculation that the US may launch an airstrike on Syria at any moment, this morning, in his latest fiery tweetstorm, after slamming the failing New York Times and again lashing out at the Russia collusion probe and Cohen’s office raid, Trump tweeted that “Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and “smart!” You shouldn’t be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!”

Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and “smart!” You shouldn’t be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!

The tweet prompted several observers to point out the following Trumps statement from the historical archives:

@walaa_3ssaf No, dopey, I would not go into Syria, but if I did it would be by surprise and not blurted all over the media like fools.

In any case, Trump’s comment came in response to a statement by the Russian ambassador to Lebanon Alexander Zasypkin who said overnight that any U.S. missiles fired at Syria will be shot down and their launch sites targeted in response to Trump promise of a forceful response to an alleged chemical attack on a rebel enclave near Damascus.

“If there is a strike by the Americans, then we refer to the statements of President [Vladimir] Putin and the chief of staff that the missiles will be downed and even the sources from which the missiles were fired,” Zasypkin told Hezbollah’s al-Manar TV.

ambassdor in beirut : "If there is a strike by the Americans on , then... the missiles will be downed and even the sources from which the missiles were fired," Zasypkin told Hezbollah's al-Manar TV, speaking in Arabic.

In response, Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said that US “smart missiles should fly towards terrorists, not a legitimate government that has been fighting international terrorism for several years on its territory” and sarcastically noted that the US “smart missiles” could be an attempt to destroy evidence of the alleged “chemical attack” on the ground in Syria.

RUSSIA RESPONDS TO Trump missiles-are-coming tweet.

Foreign Ministry’s Maria Zakharova: “Missiles must fly towards terrorists, not a legitimate government that has been fighting international terrorism in its territory for several years.”

And missiles would “destroy evidence.”

Earlier, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters that Russia “categorically” disagrees that a chemical attack took place in Syria. “I still want to hope that all parties will avoid any steps, which in reality aren’t provoked by anything, that can destabilize the already fragile situation in the region.”

Peskov also said that Putin has no plans so far for phone talks with Donald Trump, while adding that Russian market volatility is partly emotional, partly speculative; Russian economy has sufficient durability, Peskov says

Meanwhile, indicating that a US strike on Syria is imminent, on Tuesday Trump canceled a trip to Latin America to focus on the Syria incident, the White House said. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis also canceled plans to travel to California in the coming days, as Trump told reporters all options were on the table regarding Syria.

As we reported on Monday, the USS Donald Cook, a Navy destroyer, left a port in Cyprus on Monday. The guided missile destroyer is armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles, which were used a year ago after an alleged sarin gas attack on Syrian civilians.

Also overnight, Eurocontrol, the European air traffic control agency, warned airlines Tuesday to exercise caution in the eastern Mediterranean due to possible airstrikes in the next 72 hours.

Retired Adm. James Stavridis, a former head of NATO and an NBC News analyst, warned that any U.S. strike on Syria would likely require manned aircraft and characterized it as a “high-risk operation.”

“Last year was about sending a signal,” Stavridis said, referring to the April 2017 strike ordered by Trump. “This year its about destroying actual Syrian capability.”

Of course, if Russia is serious and it intends to shoot down not only US missiles but their sources – including ships and fighter jets – what happens in the next several hours could unleash World War III. Which would be bizarre if the only purpose for that is for Trump to prove to Mueller that he is not, in fact, a Russian puppet, even as the Military Industrial Complex enjoys its final victory.

Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, futures did not like the news that war between the US and Russia may be coming, and slumped to session lows.



By Tyler Durden / Republished with permission / Zero Hedge






"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+1
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
4/12/2018 3:55:42 PM

STRIKE IMMINENT: Trump Threatens WW3 Over Unverified Chemical Weapons Attacks In Regions Controlled By Terrorists

By Aaron Kesel

It’s the second chemical weapons attack to happen in Syria since President Donald Trump took office; and once again the attack seems to be convenient, as Russia and the U.S. both announced a withdrawal of troops from Syria. Why would Syrian President Bashar al-Assad gas his own people as two foreign countries are readying to leave its territory? None of this makes sense.

This isn’t the first time this happened where the timing was questionable…

In 2017 Trump faced his first test of a chemical weapons attack in Syria and his response was bombarding Syria with missiles over unverified information while MSM looked on in awe. Brian Williams praised the “beautiful display” of Syria being destroyed by Tomahawk missiles.

The first attack under Trump – the chemical strike in Khan Sheikhoun – happened months after Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had handed evidence to the Hague and the UN watchdog group OPCW that allegedly proves the Syrian rebels used mustard gas against civilians. An assertion that IHS Conflict Monitor had made in November, just a few months before the evidence was submitted.

A Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) expert, Theodore Postol, claimed the Khan Sheikhoun attack might have been staged by bad actors in the region, Yahoo News reported.

Postol concluded that the U.S. government’s report does not provide any “concrete” evidence that Assad was responsible, adding it was more likely that the attack was perpetrated by players on the ground.

Postol said:

I have reviewed the White House’s document carefully, and I believe it can be shown, without doubt, that the document does not provide any evidence whatsoever that the US government has concrete knowledge that the government of Syria was the source of the chemical attack in Khan Sheikhoun, Syria at roughly 6 a.m. to 7.a.m on 4 April, 2017.

Postol further questioned the scene, stating:

No competent analyst would miss the fact that the alleged sarin canister was forcefully crushed from above, rather than exploded by a munition within it.

All of these highly amateurish mistakes indicate that this White House report, like the earlier Obama White House Report from Ghouta in 2013, was not properly vetted by the intelligence community as claimed.

I have worked with the intelligence community in the past, and I have grave concerns about the politicisation of intelligence that seems to be occurring with more frequency in recent times – but I know that the intelligence community has highly capable analysts in it.

And if those analysts were properly consulted about the claims in the White House document they would have not approved the document going forward.

Is it possible that the chemical weapons were used by another group in the area to cause these attacks? Yes, entirely possible, since the proxy region is infested with various groups. In other words, the attack could be a state-sponsored actor or a non-state actor, i.e., terrorists.

On November 2016, The New York Times reported that IHS Conflict Monitor, a London-based intelligence collection and analysis service found that ISIS had used chemical weapons 52 times in Syria and Iraq. This report appears to have been largely ignored and forgotten by the Trump administration, as President Donald Trump previously launched a missile bombardment on a Syrian military base. He did so without having any prior investigation performed to determine who was actually responsible for the chemical attack.

Now Trump is threatening to invade Syria or take military action again for the second time while facing the fog of war. Not having enough on-ground information to work off of, President Trump in fact risks world war three with any further military movements in Syria.

Another report that corroborates IHS Conflict Monitor has found that the Islamic State has used sulfur mustard — a chemical warfare agent in the past — at least 19 times. The group’s conclusions were based on local news reports, social media and the Islamic State’s own propaganda.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the Syrian government had completed the removal of all chemical weapons from the country in 2014. The WMD handover was corroborated by the United Nations Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and a statement by Senator John Kerry. While the Syrian government is on record surrendering their chemical weapons, the “moderate rebel” groups have used them increasingly.

Let’s first review reasons why the Syrian government probably didn’t gas their own people.

First and foremost it wouldn’t benefit the Assad government in any way shape or form. Trump’s administration, before the first chemical attack under its helm, said it would not pursue regime changes on Syria’s Assad. A few days later, the attack happened and rolled back that previous promise.

This time around, Assad allegedly bombed his own people in Douma killing at least 70 and wounding scores of others mere months after the U.S. and Russia had announced they would withdraw their respective militaries from the region.

It is worth noting that the region in Syria that Western sources are from is controlled by the Al Qaeda-allied terrorist group Jaysh al-Islam. Further, the reports we’re seeing cited by the press are coming from the Western-backed and Al Qaeda-affiliated propaganda firm the White Helmets and the “pro-opposition Ghouta Media Center.”

During the last chemical weapons attack in April 2017, a doctor on the ground in Khan Sheikhoun, Dr. Shajul Islam, had received several shipments of gas masks in the days leading up to the chemical incident. That same doctor is also one of the main sources for MSM reporting on this chemical attack, despite the fact that the man was sought by the British government in connection with the abduction of two journalists in Syria and is alleged to have ties to the infamous now-dead Jihadi John.

Islam had his license stripped after being accused of participating in a terrorist kidnapping ring targeting Western journalists, PJMedia reported.

British journalist, John Cantlie, was set to testify as the main witness against Islam during the pre-trial hearing. However, Cantlie was then kidnapped a second time.

This wasn’t the first time that the U.S. media has used a “medical professional’s” claims to advance war. It’s important to remember during the Gulf War a nurse named Nayirah testified that Iraqi soldiers removed babies from incubators in Kuwait.


It turned out that Nayirah was in fact, Nijirah al-Sabah, the daughter of Kuwait’s ambassador to the United States Saud Nasir Al-Sabah at the time. She was coached by Hill & Knowlton to forge her infamous testimony which was widely reported and repeated throughout the media despite being proven false, as 60 Minutes exposed in the 1990s. Knowing this is important to understand, that in order to go to war in a foreign country most Americans have never even heard of requires an emotional response to push that agenda onto the people.

The group in the Khan Sheikhoun area is also occupied by the NGO White Helmets whose leader Raed Salah, was denied entry into the U.S. at Washington’s Dulles International Airport and deported, due to “extremist connections” while on his way to receive a humanitarian relief award at a gala dinner hosted by USAID.

As WikiLeaks noted, the White Helmets are mostly funded by the U.S. government. Although theyalso get funding from London as its primary PR front in pursuit of a “No Fly Zone” in Syria.



John Kerry met with this same group – you can learn more
here.

This same group faked a crisis scene previously that looked shockingly real for the infamous “mannequin challenge.” The video was then pulled from their YouTube channel after it raised immense levels of controversy. It was labeled as distasteful, but not before others on the Internet downloaded it and re-uploaded it.

This isn’t the first time that MSM has fallen for terrorist propaganda. In 2016 it was widely reportedthat there was a parked car bomb that killed 10 in a Baghdad neighborhood. The story was said to have come from police sources, but there was one small problem: after the story went viral, a video was leaked online showing the fake staged attack and actors faking injuries.

A video circulating on Twitter shows terrorists in Syria training children to stage a reaction. The video appears to show children faking death from a chemical weapon attack. Towards the end of the video people can be seen clapping.

So now that those facts are established, there is a backbone to who these rebels consist of.

Is there any evidence where ISIS (otherwise known as the “moderate rebels,” as documents obtained byJudicial Watch state is the growing jihadi presence within the Syrian rebel groups) could have potentially got chemical weapons?

Yes, in fact, Foreign Policy reported that in 2012 ISIS had captured a Syrian military base that was filled with chemical weapons. That’s one year prior to the 2013 infamous chemical attack where UN envoy investigators were shot at by snipers in Syria trying to investigate the incident.

According to Foreign Policy, their source — an ISIS fighter Abu Ahmad — stated that the terrorist group found barrels filled with chlorine, sarin, and mustard gas. Al-Nusra, an Al-Qaeda affiliate, then called for dozens of trucks to transport the chemical weapons according to Ahmad.

The Guardian also reported that ISIS had captured a massive former Iraqi chemical weapons factory with more than 2,000 degraded chemical rockets filled with sarin gas in 2014.

Then, that same year, it was claimed that two abandoned cylinders containing sarin were reportedlyseized by Syrian government troops in an area controlled by armed opposition groups and handed over to the United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

The letter stated that the cylinders were, “reportedly seized by the armed forces of the Syrian Arab Republic in August 2013 in an area reportedly under the control of armed opposition groups.”

Is there evidence that these weapons have been used before? Indeed, they have been used by several jihadist groups and not only ISIS.

Voice of America reported in 2016 that jihadist group, Jaysh al-Islam, used chemical weapons in attacks against Kurdish troops in Aleppo.

Syrian rebels have also been caught testing Tekkim chemicals on rabbits and even threatened to use the chemicals against civilians in Syria on a sectarian basis.


Shortly before the recent attack in late March, Activist Post reported that the Syrian Army had claimed it had uncovered a chemical weapons “workshop” in East Ghouta after having liberated the territory.

What’s more, in that same report the government had warned of the possibility of a false flag attack blamed on the Syrian government.

After sweeping through the village of Aftris in Eastern Ghouta following the withdrawal of terrorists from the area, Syrian Army Colonel Feruz Ibrahim told reporters that, “Presumably, the equipment of these munitions could be produced as part of a false flag accusation that government troops used chemical weapons.”

A secular Syrian commentator on Syria also expressed there may be a coming false flag, stating his cause for concern on Twitter and predicting the attack almost dead-on.

In mid-March 2018, the Russian Centre for Syrian Reconciliation also published a statement that Eastern Ghouta insurgents, according to an anonymous phone call, were preparing a possible provocation involving the use of chemical agents.

Now, Eurocontrol, the European Union body responsible for handling air traffic over Europe, has issued a Rapid Alert Notification (RNA) to flight operators in the eastern Mediterranean, warning them to be ready for NATO rockets being launched into Syria. Presumably, the rockets would be fired from France and Britain, which France has previously warned it would strike if chemical weapons were found to be used.

Due to the possible launch of air strikes into Syria with air-to-ground and/or cruise missiles within the next 72 hours, and the possibility of intermittent disruption of radio navigation equipment, due consideration needs to be taken when planning flight operations in the Eastern Mediterranean / Nicosia FIR area.

Theresa May said that the UK was considering what action was necessary in response to the “barbaric” attack, the Independent reported.

When May was asked if the UK would join any US-led military action in Syria, the prime minister said:

What we are currently doing is working urgently with our allies to assess what has happened here.

We… are working urgently with our allies to assess what has happened. But, we are also working with our allies on any action that is necessary.

On Monday, U.S. President Donald Trump stated in an address that he was “very strongly, very seriously” considering military action against the government of Bashar Assad over the alleged chemical attack in Douma, Syria on April 7th. Trump expressed that a “major decision” would be taken within the following 24-48 hours.



While Trump’s State Department, run by CIA warhawk Mike Pompeo, has issued a
statementimplicating Assad despite the lack of on-ground investigation into the attack. He highlighted that Russia’s “unwavering support” for Syria’s government “ultimately bears responsibility” for the alleged attacks.

The Assad regime and its backers must be held accountable and any further attacks prevented immediately. Russia, with its unwavering support for the regime, ultimately bears responsibility for these brutal attacks, targeting of countless civilians, and the suffocation of Syria’s most vulnerable communities with chemical weapons. By shielding its ally Syria, Russia has breached its commitments to the United Nations as a framework guarantor. It has betrayed the Chemical Weapons Convention and UN Security Council Resolution 2118. Russia’s protection of the Assad regime and failure to stop the use of chemical weapons in Syria calls into question its commitment to resolving the overall crisis and to larger non-proliferation priorities.

This would be National Security Council advisor John “Bomb Iran” Bolton’s first week in office, a man who is known as a Bush-era lapdog warmonger.

An air strike was already carried out against a Syrian air base on Monday, with no statement claiming responsibility for the attack. Damascus, Moscow, and Tehran have all stated that the attack was carried out by Israel from Lebanese airspace, RT reported.

A Russian general responded, stating that Russia may respond with military force to a U.S. strike on Syria.

“The double standard policy has overstepped all possible boundaries. At this point, the pro-Putin parliamentary majority United Russia party must responsibly state that we are going to take all political and diplomatic measures, and also military measures if such need arises,” Russian General said on Tuesday. “Not a single unlawful action will be left without response.”

Russia also warned of “serious consequences” over U.S. attacks. The Russian Foreign Ministry’s official position is that the chemical attack didn’t happen, Reuters reported.

Not to be outdone, Trump responded bombastically this morning:

Activist Post reported last year after the first chemical weapons attack, that the State Department had admitted that various groups inside Syria of “rebels” had used chemical weapons in a travel alert. Those groups included – Jobhat al-Nusra, Jobhat Fatah al-Sham, and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham but did not include Jaysh al-Islam.

The use of chemical and biological weapons in warfare was banned after World War I — a prohibition that was reaffirmed in 1972 and again in 1993.

With this renewed information, it’s highly possible that Syrian government opposition groups staged a chemical weapons attack. Or, as the Russians and Syria have stated previously, the chemicals were spread from bombs that the group had stored.

In order to determine what really happened on the ground, a probe is needed by the UN Security Council and the international community. The other possibility is much more sinister, and that is that the CIA was involved – not a crazy thought considering its history of regime change attempts in the region.

Especially since the OPCW has been previously blocked by Western nations from conducting a forensic investigation into the Syrian chemical weapons attacks. One has to question why that’s the case?

The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has announced they have been gathering information from all available sources and analyzing the data. At the same time, OPCW’s Director-General, Ambassador Ahmet Üzümcü, has considered the deployment of a Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) team to Douma to substantiate these allegations, Relief Web reported.

We need to conduct a thorough, unbiased investigation before this incident spirals the world into World War Three. It seems more plausible that the rebels amid defeat orchestrated the attack to frame the Syrian government. Particularly because there were multiple warnings about an attack in Syria prior to the actual provocation.

As you read this, U.S. fighter jets and other coalition jets have been seen flying over Iraq’s border as the U.S. Navy destroyer, the U.S.S. Donald Cook, is heading towards the Eastern Mediterranean along with a carrier strike group, as well as a guided-missile cruiser and four guided-missile destroyers led by the U.S.S. Harry Truman.

It has also been reported that Russian fighter jets buzzed the U.S.S. Donald Cook, but those claims are unconfirmed and the Navy claimed they were bogus.

CNN’s Turkey service claimed the destroyer had moved out to Syrian territorial waters where it was harassed by Russian jets.

However, Pentagon officials have denied that narrative, according to Task & Purpose.

“There are elements of that story that are just simply not true,” Navy spokesman Cmdr. Bill Speaks told Task & Purpose. Speaks said the reports that the ship was being buzzed by Russian aircraft were “completely bogus.”

The Pentagon itself has expressed worry over the potential for a missile strike on Syria harming or injuring Russian soldiers in the region, LA Times reported.

Russia has warned the U.S., on the record, of potential consequences for Western intervention in Syria by stating that attacks on Syria “could lead to grave repercussions.”

Russia has further advised the U.S. that Moscow’s envoy to Lebanon (Russian military) reserves the right to shoot down any missiles and destroy the launch sites of those launched towards Syria.

Russia will comply with its president’s statement on U.S. aggression against Syria, downing the US missiles,” Ambassador Alexander Zasypkin was quoted as saying by al-Manar TV.

“This provocation was like a breeze of the fresh air needed by militants who received such timely support from the US and other Western countries,” Nebenzia said at the UNSC meeting on Tuesday. Nebenzia warned the U.S. and its allies against launching a military strike in Syria, bypassing the UN voting council stating the U.S. was breaking the law.

“If you made a decision to carry out an illegal military endeavor, we hope, hope that you will come to your senses. You will be responsible for it yourselves,” Nebenzia said.

Assad has left the border in a Russian convoy headed towards the Syrian-Lebanese border according to reports as a missile strike in Syria is now imminent.


Aaron Kesel writes for Activist Post.


(activistpost.com)


"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+1
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
4/12/2018 4:51:37 PM



How the Media Makes It Seem Like Gaza Deserves Israel’s War Crimes

April 11, 2018 at 3:22 pm

(FAIR) As Adam Johnson (FAIR.org, 4/9/18) writes, media have engaged in extraordinary mental gymnastics to describe the Israeli military’s deliberate killing of Palestinian protesters in the Great Return March, framing long-distance sniper shootings as “clashes” in order to misleadingly “give the reader the impression of two equal warring sides.”

Equally torturous are the linguistic contortions news outlets have performed to avoid stating the simple fact that Israel is shooting hundreds of demonstrators with live ammunition (Electronic Intifada, 4/6/18), killing 30 (Reuters, 4/9/18) and injuring close to 2,000. An Associated Pressheadline (4/6/18) said, “Palestinian Protesters Burn Tires, Sending Smoke Billowing at Gaza/Israel Border; Israeli Troops Fire Back Sporadically.” That’s a logical impossibility: Israeli forces cannot “fire back” at people who aren’t firing at them. The sentence rests on the absurd assumption that burning tires is the same as shooting people.

gaza

Another AP headline (4/7/18) said, “Gaza Buries Journalist Who Died After Covering Mass Protests,” a reference to Palestinian journalist Yasser Murtaja, whom Israel shot while he filmed Friday’s march in Gaza. Readers could conclude from the headline that Murtaja covered the protests and then went home and died of natural causes. In reality, he died because an Israeli sniper shot him. Obfuscating that absolves Israel.

gaza

There was also this cryptic news brief from the New York Times (4/6/18): “Sporadic rifle fire from the Israeli side of the Gaza border made clear that the Palestinian protests could elicit the sort of response that killed 20 people a week ago.” The paper uses 30 words and still fails to convey the critical information that can be communicated in seven words: Israel kills nine Palestinian protesters in Gaza.

Not only does the headline seriously muddy what happened, it also primes readers to blame Palestinians for being massacred, by saying their protests “elicited” the massacre. Likewise, describing Israel’s massacre as a “response” is a way of justifying it.

The references in these headlines to the Gaza/Israel “border,” ubiquitous in the coverage of the Great Return March, are erroneous. There is no border between Gaza and Israel; there is an armistice line. Israel built a fence along that line and uses lethal violence against Palestinians who approach the structure. Calling this barrier a “border” wrongly implies that the question of Palestine has been resolved, which the marches themselves belie.

These headlines, as Johnson says of the term “clashes,” “obscure…power dynamics and the nature of the conflict itself,” occluding the colonial character of the Israeli project and the Palestinians’ right to struggle for liberation.

By Gregory Shupak / Creative Commons / FAIR.org







"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+1
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
4/12/2018 5:31:28 PM



Under International Law, Military Strikes by the US Against Syria Are Illegal Acts of Aggression

April 12, 2018 at 7:16 am

In this statement released Wednesday, a group of international law experts warn that a U.S. military strike on Syria would be illegal if not in self-defense or with U.N. Security Council authorization.


(CN) We are practitioners and professors of international law. Under international law, military strikes by the United States of America and its allies against the Syrian Arab Republic, unless conducted in self-defense or with United Nations Security Council approval, are illegal and constitute acts of aggression.

The unlawful killing of any human being without legal justification, under every legal system, is murder. And an act of violence committed by one government against another government, without lawful justification, amounts to the crime of aggression: the supreme international crime which carries with it the evil of every other international crime, as noted by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1946.

The use of military force by a state can be used in self-defense after an armed attack by another state, or, with the approval of the United Nations Security Council. At present, neither instance would apply to a U.S. strike against Syria.

We understand the urge to act to protect innocent civilians. We strongly condemn any and all violence against civilians, whoever the perpetrators. But responding to unlawful violence with more unlawful violence, bypassing existing legal mechanisms, is a road to a lawless world. It is a road that leads to Hell.

Accordingly, we urge the United States and its allies to refrain from illegal conduct against Syria. We must point out that for the last several years, as is now common knowledge, the United States has armed rebels/insurgents to overthrow the current government of Syria. This is illegal under international law.

In 1986, in The Nicaragua Case, the International Court of Justice reprimanded the United States for arming and supporting contra militias and combatants, and for mining Nicaragua’s harbors, as acts which violated the U.N. Charter and international law. Perhaps the Syrian crisis would look differently today if the United States and its allies had consistently respected law for the last several years. They have not.

We take pains to note what should be obvious: our demand that the United States and its allies immediately comport themselves with their international legal obligations is not a justification, excuse, or some type of free pass on the investigation and accountability for international legal violations committed by other actors who may be involved in this sad affair. But our point is a simple one: the only way to resolve the Syrian crisis is through commitment to well-settled principles of international legal norms.

We urge the United States to abide by its commitment to the rule of international law and to seek to resolve its disputes through peaceful means. These means include recourse to the use of established and legitimate institutions designed to maintain international peace and security, such as the U.N. Security Council or the International Court of Justice. Unilateral action is a sign of weakness; recourse to the law is a sign of strength. The United States must walk back from becoming the very monster it now seeks to destroy.

Inder Comar – Executive Director at Just Atonement Inc.

Dr. Ryan Alford – Associate Professor at Bora Laskin Faculty of Law, Lakehead University

Marjorie Cohn – Professor Emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law

Jeanne Mirer – President at International Association of Democratic Lawyers

Dr. Curtis F.J. Doebbler – Research Professor of Law at University of Makeni

Abdeen Jabara – Civil Rights Attorney and Co-Founder of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee

Ramsey Clark – 66th Attorney-General of the United States

Republished with permission / Consortium News






"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+1
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
4/13/2018 10:54:48 AM

U.S. BORDER AGENTS DUMP INJURED MAN OVER BORDER BECAUSE HE 'LOOKS' MEXICAN

BY


Updated | A newly released video shows U.S. Border Patrol agents attempting to return an injured man to Mexico, claiming he “looks” Mexican.

The footage obtained by NBC News depicts an incident on the U.S.-Mexico border in Calexico, California on March 27, 2017.

“They are bringing him over here,” a Mexican border agent is heard saying in Spanish.

Responding to repeated warnings that the U.S. agents risked breaking a repatriation agreement, an officer responds, “Why would I have to call the consulate. He’s not in my custody?” The agent added that he has been doing the job for 20 years.

“You don’t even know if he’s Mexican or not,” a Mexican agent adds, to which a U.S. guard replies the man "looks" Mexican. The agent is also heard saying, “If I leave him there he was going to kill himself.”

Mexican border agents prevented their U.S. counterparts from handing over the man, who appears to be injured and mentally unstable. He then walks into traffic in the U.S.

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection sent NBC News the video after the network was alerted to it by a whistleblower. The agency did not reveal the names of those shown in the video for privacy reasons and NBC was unable to verify their identities.

A U.S. Customs and Border Protection officer stands guard as pedestrians enter the United States at the San Ysidro port of entry on April 9, 2018 in San Ysidro, California. A newly released video shows a standoff between Mexican and U.S. border agents as the latter tried to repatriate a man.MARIO TAMA/GETTY IMAGES

An unnamed law enforcement source told NBC News that the man was left in a park and was taken to the Mexican consulate a month later as he tried to enter the U.S. from Mexico. The spokesperson added that the man was later confirmed to be a Mexican national, who had been arrested on 16 prior occasions for entering the U.S. illegally from multiple states. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection launched an investigation after Mexican officials complained.

A spokesperson for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) told Newsweek the agency's Office of Professional Responsibility is investigating the incident depicted in the video.

"The Mexican Consulate notified the U.S. Border Patrol’s El Centro Sector about the incident at the time, which was March 17, 2017. After a review of the incident based on the information available, the Sector’s leadership addressed the agents’ actions," the spokesperson said.

"CBP is committed to treating everyone with professionalism, dignity and respect while enforcing the laws of the United States. CBP takes all allegations of mistreatment seriously, and does not tolerate actions that are not consistent with our core values of Vigilance, Service to Country and Integrity.”

Assistant Chief Patrol Agent David S. Kim told NBC News that the actions in the video were not consistent with the force’s normal procedures. “Corrective action was taken to ensure all our agents understand their responsibilities of adhering to established processes, practices, and policies,” he said. A CBP spokesperson told the network the footage showed an “isolated incident.”

The video of the standoff follows a 2017 study by the nonprofit advocacy group American Immigration Council (AIC) into the capture, custody and removal process of Mexican migrants from U.S. The survey of 600 migrants found that 43 percent were not told they had the right to contact their consulate, and almost 60 percent did not receive repatriation documents. Almost a quarter reported immigration authorities subjected them to abuse or aggression as they were apprehended.

“What emerges from the survey data and testimonies is an alarming portrait of the way Mexican migrants are treated while in U.S. custody and through the deportation process," AIC said in a statement at the time.

"Often, migrants do not receive copies of deportation documents and have little understanding of the processes they have undergone and the related legal ramifications. When U.S. officials prevent migrants from accessing critical information and processes, they further deprive individuals of their possible legal opportunities to present immigration claims,” the statement continued.

Guillermo Cantor, research director at the American Immigration Council and author of the study, told Newsweek​: “CBP officers have a history of overstepping the boundaries of their authority. For years, we have been documenting and reporting on the multiple instances of abuse and mistreatment that migrants are subjected to when in CBP custody.

"Specifically, our research has revealed that U.S. immigration officials routinely use misinformation, coercion, and intimidation to remove people from the United States. These practices deprive migrants of basic due process rights, which is extremely problematic.”

This piece has been updated with a statement from U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and a comment from Guillermo Cantor​.


(newsweek)

"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+1


facebook
Like us on Facebook!