Bloodthirsty Liberal

Oh man, this is going to leave a mark!

The Prosecutor for the International Criminal Court in The Hague announced Tuesday that he rejected a complaint filed by the PA against Israel for alleged war crimes during “Operation Cast Lead” in Gaza in 2009.

The prosecutor explained that only states can file a complaint with the International Criminal Court. “The Palestinian Authority is only an observer at the United Nations and not a member state.

Allow me to translate: get away from me, kid, you bother me.

Israel tries not to gloat—and fails:

The Foreign Ministry responded to the decision, “Israel notes the decision of the Prosecutor International Criminal Court, that it does not have jurisdiction to hear complaints from the PA at this time.”

“Israel made it clear from the beginning that the ICC had no jurisdiction to hear such complaints and welcomes the prosecutor’s decision to that effect,” it added.

Israel is rightly suspicious of the ICC. Name me another international body that does not routinely and ritually demonize the Jewish state. I’ll go take a shower, walk the dog, and derive the last decimal of pi while I wait.

But for now, take a seat at the kids’ table, PA, and don’t speak unless spoken to.

The expression “the law is an ass” stops one syllable short if you ask me:

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) warned Tuesday that should the Palestinian Authority’s statehood bid in the United Nations prove successful, West Bank settlers may find themselves facing criminal charges before the International Crimes Court.

An ACRI position paper on the possible legal ramifications of the PA’s UN bid suggests that a General Assembly sanction of the Palestinian appeal with effectively subject West Bank settlements, and therefore settlers, to international criminal law and penal code.

As such, settlers would be exposed to individual criminal lawsuits in The Hague.

That isn’t law; it’s an inquisition.

After ’67, Israel found itself in possession of Sinai, Gaza, and Judea and Samaria*. I don’t give any weight to UN Resolutions, but for those who do, UN Res. 242 says Israel will return territories seized after the Arab perfidy and humiliation of ’67. Doesn’t say all—a deliberate omission—borders were to be negotiated. After returning Sinai and rendering Gaza Jew-free, came the harder part: negotiating with intractable, genocidal enemies over such “settlements” as Jericho, Bethlehem, Hebron, etc. (No Jewish history there!)

Skipping the rest of the nonsense of the last 45 years, the Arabs of Judea and Samaria* now threaten to abandon diplomacy for declarations. And the result of that repudiation of civilization and international law is that another part of this earth will be rendered judenrein.

[Beep] that. That’s not law; that’s not even an inquisition; that’s another Final Solution.

No, that’s not too strong. The first Final Solution (not so final, was it, fascists and other Jew-haters?) was also founded in “laws” about where Jews may and may not live, and even held that their very existence a criminal act. I do not acknowledge such law, much less respect it. The Devil can cite case law for his purpose.

If the ICC wants to join the lynch mob, that’s on them. International law is an ass, and international lawyers are a**holes.

*”West Bank”? “Palestinians”? Poppycock. Those are modern inventions. The Palestinians are Arabs who live in Judea and Samaria (and Jordan), and most of Judea and Samaria lies miles from either bank of the Jordan River. Stop corrupting my language.

Hama is a Syrian town in which at least 20,000 citizens were murdered by the Syrian government when Assad’s father was the dictator. Today they are under attack again.

Before we start, is it random to wonder what’s going on in Libya? And if we are part of a bombing campaign to remove Khaddafi, why are we silent about Assad?

At least 45 civilians were killed in a tank assault on the city of Hama on Sunday to crush pro-democracy protests, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said, quoting hospital officials in the city.

Scores of people were wounded and blood for transfusions was in short supply, a doctor who did not want to be identified said by telephone from the city, which has a population of around 700,000.

“Tanks are attacking from four directions. They are firing their heavy machineguns randomly and overrunning makeshift road blocks erected by the inhabitants,” the doctor said, the sound of machine gun fire crackling in the background.

Hama was the scene of a massacre in 1982 when Assad’s father, the late president Hafez al-Assad, sent his troops to crush an Islamist-led uprising, razing whole neighborhoods and killing up to 30,000 people in the bloodiest episode of Syria’s modern history.

We don’t hear much about any of this, do we? I wonder why not?

- Aggie

Via Caroline Glick

Uh oh.

Was the killing of Osama bin Laden legal under international law? Experts are unsure.

Attorney General Eric Holder told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that the U.S. raid on bin Laden’s compound was lawful “as an act of national self-defense.”

…

But a number of experts have told CNN the question of legality may come down to bin Laden’s response at the moment U.S. Navy SEALs burst into his room.

U.S. officials have revised their account of what happened during the assault on the compound in Pakistan. Bin Laden was not armed during the 40-minute raid, they now say, but he put up resistance to U.S. forces.

Officials earlier claimed that bin Laden was an active participant in the firefight that erupted, implying that he was armed and gave the SEALs little choice but to shoot him.

“If a person has his hands in the air, you’re not supposed to kill him,” said Steven Groves, a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation. But Groves, citing the Geneva Conventions and international humanitarian law, told CNN that, based on the most recent White House account, “there is nothing to indicate anything illegal happened.”

…

Geoffrey Robertson, a human rights lawyer who has defended WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange among others, made clear that international law requires any killing to be done in self-defense.

If members of the SEAL team “reasonably (believed there was) a risk to themselves, then the killing was justified,” Robertson asserted. But given the changing White House account of the raid, “there needs to be an inquiry,” he said.

An inquiry?! Oh [bleep]!

Did we say he’s dead? No, we meant he’s dread-fully sorry for 9/11. Apologized and everything.

Somebody better yank what’s left of him back up out of the Bay of Pigs and prop him up in front of the cameras.

Can someone make a logical case for the absurdity known as “international law”?

Hamas: Sisi kidnapping a violation of international law!

Hamas, the terrorist group that kidnapped Gilad Shalit roughly four years ago, is upset because Israel kidnapped someone? Get out!

Noam Schalit speaks with engineer’s wife, asks her to pressure Hamas for Gilad’s release; Sisi denies any connection to Schalit affair, Hamas.

Hamas on Thursday condemned the imprisonment and capture of Palestinian engineer Dirar Abu Sisi, calling it a violation of international law.

That’s what it takes to upset them? Well, I say to Israel: Kidnap, baby kidnap! Maybe you can get them to free Schalit.

- Aggie

Iranian thugs got violent, and abused the diplomatic immunity of another nation’s embassy. No, not 1979—today:

Crowd control, Persian style

Iranian security agents struck French diplomats in scuffles at a Tehran embassy residence, prompting France to summon Iran’s ambassador and complain of “unacceptable violence”, officials said Tuesday.

“On November 14, particularly serious incidents took place at the entry to the ambassadorial residence in Tehran,” the French foreign ministry said in a statement.

“Its entry was blocked by unidentified security services who proceeded to arrest guests of the French ambassador and carried out unacceptable acts of violence including against French diplomatic personnel,” it added.

…

French officials said plain-clothes security officers struck at least two French diplomats and arrested guests arriving at the residence of ambassador Bernard Poletti for a concert of Persian music.

The diplomats were struck when they barred the way as agents tried to pursue a woman who rushed into the embassy, but they were not seriously injured, an embassy official said.

Diplomats say similar incidents have happened at the British, Austrian, Dutch and Australian embassies, with agents targeting young Iranians turning up for functions.

Diplomatic norms “impose on the host state a special obligation to take appropriate measures so that diplomatic missions can carry out their work with respect for international agreements that Iran has signed,” the French ministry said.

Protest in front of the British Embassy

Whereas this is the sort of protests Iranian diplomats can expect to meet, at least in Ukraine:

All the vodka your liver can process, and crazy hot Slavic chicks out your window all day, every day. It’s a tough job, but somebody’s got to do it.

So Norway wants to boycott Israel? [Via Mark Steyn] Fine, g’ahead. What’s stopping you?

More than 40 percent of Norwegians are already boycotting Israeli products or are in favour of doing so, according to a poll published Wednesday, two days after Israel’s deadly raid on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla.

The survey, conducted on Tuesday by the InFact institute and published Wednesday in the Verdens Gang tabloid, showed that 9.5 percent of the Norwegians questioned were already boycotting Israeli products, while 33.5 percent said they would like to.

Only 29.4 percent of the 1,028 people polled said they were opposed to such a boycott, while 27.6 percent said they had no opinion on the issue.

Kristin Halvorsen, Norway’s health minister and head of the Socialist Left party, called on Tuesday for the international community to boycott arms trade with Israel, in line with Norway’s existing policy.

The Socialist Left Party? Isn’t that straight out of the Department of Redundancy Department?

But fine, Norway, indulge your inner Goebbels. (Like him, you have no balls at all.) Don’t let the truth get in your way; it might kill your Jew-hating high.

Think I’m taking this too far?

Then why is another headline in this poxy paper: Will Israel drop an atomic bomb?

Iran has more centrifuges whirling than Turkey has dervishes, and this… this… fish wrapper is worried about Israel.

And speaking of fish: that’s where our boycott of Norway should start:

The country is richly endowed with natural resources – petroleum, hydropower, fish, forests and minerals – and is highly dependent on its oil production and international oil prices. Only Saudi Arabia exports more oil than Norway. Norway imports more than half its food needs.

Norway has to import more than half it’s food, huh? I think I see a bargaining position. Hey, Copenhagen*: hungry? This Wendy’s Double Bacon Cheeseburger sure smells good. Or are you going to stick with the Fishamajig? Again. Nachos with guacamole or baked haddock? Again.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I could eat seafood every day. But I’m glad I don’t have to.

Israel has been known to drop leaflets warning in advance that they are going to bomb the terrorists hiding (openly) among the general public.

Israel should set up a blockade around Norway and drop leaflets encouraging the hostiles to surrender. I suggest the corndog pizza:

They’d surrender faster than you can say liberté, egalité, fraternité.

*I know it’s Helsinki**, not Copenhagen, but I’m re-working the John Belushi joke from Animal House about the Germans bombing Pearl Harbor.

** I mean Stockholm.

UPDATE
Looks like I owe Helsinki (I mean Warsaw) an apology:

A perusal of The Helsinki Principles on the Law of Maritime Neutrality, a basis for international law on the subject, shows that Israel was well within its prescriptions in forcibly stopping the Gaza-bound flotilla.

The relevant clauses in the Helsinki Principles read as follows:

5.1.2 Protection against attacks

(3) Merchant ships flying the flag of a neutral State may be attacked if they are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search, capture or diversion.

(4) Merchant ships flying the flag of a neutral State may be attacked if they

(a) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;

(b) act as auxiliaries to the enemy’s armed forces;

(c) are incorporated into or assist the enemy’s intelligence system;

(d) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or

(e) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy’s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.

5.2.1 Visit and search
… [B]elligerent warships have a right to visit and search vis-à-vis neutral commercial ships in order to ascertain the character and destination of their cargo. If a ship tries to evade this control or offers resistance, measures of coercion necessary to exercise this right are permissible. This includes the right to divert a ship where visit and search at the place where the ship is encountered are not practical.

5.2.10 Blockade
Blockade, i.e. the interdiction of all or certain maritime traffic coming from or going to a port or coast of a belligerent, is a legitimate method of naval warfare. In order to be valid, the blockade must be declared, notified to belligerent and neutral States, effective and applied impartially to ships of all States. A blockade may not bar access to neutral ports or coasts. Neutral vessels believed on reasonable and probable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be stopped and captured. If they, after prior warning, clearly resist capture, they may be attacked.

See you in court, a-holes.

You know what I’m going to do?

I’m going to hire me a good international lawyer—the best there is—and I’m going to sue the pants off the oxymoronic Palestinian Authority. And then I’m going to sue the United Nations. I’m going to own that building when I’m done with them, and then I’m going to dynamite one side of it so it topples into the East River to make an artificial reef for the fishes.

If there is such a thing as international law, it might as well be put to good use:

The head of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) on Saturday slammed Israel’s actions on the Temple Mount Friday.

OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu decried what he called Israel’s “abuse” of worshippers at the Al-Aqsa mosque. He said Israel’s actions were in violation of international law and could lead to a religious war. Ihsanoglu called on the international community to stop the “Israeli attacks” on religious sites.

[Long-suffering sigh] Okay, what did the Jews do this time?

Approximately 20 policemen and dozens of Palestinians were wounded in the riots, the latest in a flare of violent incidents over Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s announcement incorporating the Cave of the Patriarch’s in Hebron and Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem onto Israel’s list of national heritage sites.

The United Nations Security Council also expressed concern over the riots.

So “dozens of Palestinians” were just wounded, huh? Just like that?

Abbas said Israeli security forces, which he termed the “occupation army,” were “provoking” members of other faiths in a way that could “set off a religious war in the region.” He warned that “Israeli escapades” in east Jerusalem would have repercussions not just in the city and the Middle East, but also in Muslim world.

Uh-huh. And?

The PA president urged the US and the international community to intervene and stop tensions from escalating further.The PA president urged the US and the international community to intervene and stop tensions from escalating further.

Syria also condemned what it termed Israel’s “desecration of Arab and Islamic sanctities” in Jerusalem on Friday, adding its voice to those opposing indirect negotiations between the Palestinians and Israel.

Uh-huh. And?

“The desecration … comes at a time when the majority of the Arab League Council’s memebers adopted the indirect Palestinian-Israeli negotiations,” read a statement released by the Syrian Foreign Ministry and quoted by SANA. It further noted that the clashes serve as “extra evidence on Israel’s non-seriousness about peace … and a proof of the Israeli anti-peace policy that aims at liquidating the Palestinian cause.”

Echoing Abbas’s earlier statement, Damascus called Friday’s incident a “blatant provocation to the feeling of hundreds of millions of Muslims.”

Desecration, got it. What else?

Eighteen policemen were lightly wounded in their attempt to restore order on the Temple Mount after Arab youths emerging from Friday prayers started hurling rocks down onto those worshiping at the Western Wall.

Whoa, whoa, what was that again?

Arab youths emerging from Friday prayers started hurling rocks down onto those worshiping at the Western Wall.

I think I see the hole in their argument.

I don’t know for certain that international law is a complete circle-jerk, but if anyone says a peep about Israel taking action against pious Palestinian pebble pushers, they can take it up with my international attorney, Vinnie Goombatz.

First, we’ll close Gitmo, while holding all the enemy combatants there indefinitely. Then—oops, did I say “enemy combatants”?

The 1984-ization of our politics continues apace:

In a dramatic break with the Bush administration, the Justice Department on Friday announced it is doing away with the designation of “enemy combatant,” which allowed the United States to hold suspected terrorists at length without criminal charges.

In a court filing in Washington, the department said it is developing a new standard for the government’s authority to hold detainees at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in Cuba.

The announcement says the Justice Department will no longer rely on the the president’s authority as commander in chief, but on authority specifically granted by Congress.

And the government document says that individuals who support al Qaeda or the Taliban are detainable only if the support was “substantial.”

I’m way confused. How can the government be developing a new standard for holding enemy com—sorry, force of habit—”compulsary guests” at a place they’ve already declared their intention to close? And if the commander in chief is abdicating this authority, are there any others he’s tossing aside like a used Kleenex? And may we treat his authority similarly?

What qualifies as “substantial” support for the Taliban? Would returning to the battlefield after release count, as more than a few “involuntary visitors” have done?

I was going to quibble also with CNN’s term “dramatic break” from Bush administration policy—but I think I see their point. The terms “enemy combatant” and “unlawful combatant” have long-standing usage, and are addressed in the Geneva Conventions. For President Obama to summarily dismiss them is more than merely dramatic—it is hair-raising.

What other accepted tenets [corrected from "tents] of international law does he intend to throw under the bus?

I wouldn’t worry. Whatever we call them, and wherever we call them it, this is just window-dressing to fool his addled and distracted supporters.

At least I sure hope so.