Questions re attacking Heebie-Jeebies

[name]

This is about doing what I think is right, group and personal helplessness, and a bit more.

We all know that they will soon be celebrating that their little cloaca of crime and terror is turning 60, and we know the ugly side of it, and why they hide it behind a massive wall of propaganda, intimidation, subborning, subverting the body politics of many countries ...

In order to combat my helplessness I've been reading thru pertinent laws and I think that I have discovered, legally speaking, their soft underbelly, and ways to harass them in court endlessly in perhaps half of all jurisdictions worldwide. If I decide to go forward with this, I could start sending out letters by next week.

Still, I have some doubts. My requests for comment to the forum would be:
- How wise is it to frontally attack these STS types, knowing their track record ?
- How do I balance out the 'doing what I think is right' vs. my risk in this ?
- Is there any way of knowing if the usefulness of such an action is greater than the troubles it could potentially cause ?

BTW, I'm not a lawyer, and I dont have the money to consult one.

I'd appreciate any comment whatsoever about this.

 

[Meg]

Hi Name,

Question #1: It's not wise IMO. They have big dogs with big teeth.

Question #2: From my experience, if I have to spend a lot of time and energy convincing myself it's the right thing to do, it's probably not.

Question #3: If you think your research is legitimate and can have an effect, you might want to consider publishing it on the web via a blog so that people who are buried in the "track" can use your research to further their fight? Or contacting groups that are already fighting the STS and providing them with your research?

Your post reminded me of Laura's comments about the struggle of seers, the warrior's strategy and petty tyrants in the ISOTM #2 podcast. Fwiw

The strategy consists of six elements that interplay with one another. Five of them are called the attributes of warriorship." And they are: "control, discipline, forbearance, timing, and wilt[will]. They pertain to the world of the warrior who is fighting to lose self-importance. The sixth element, which is perhaps the most important of all, pertains to the outside world and is called the petty tyrant. The petty tyrant is a tormentor: someone who either holds the power of life and death over warriors, or simply annoys them to distraction. Petty tyrants who persecute and inflict misery, but without actually causing anybody's death, are the first sub-class of petty tyrants. They were called little petty tyrants. The second consisted of petty tyrants who were only exasperating and bothersome to no end. They are called small-fry petty tyrants." And, he adds that "the little petty tyrants are further divided into four categories: one that torments with brutality and violence, another that does it by creating unbearable apprehension through deviousness, another which oppresses with sadness, and the last which torments by making warriors rage." So, we see right here that Don Juan is talking about the exact conditions in which G came to his realizations and his understandings. Conditions of being exposed to, subjected to petty tyrants, we also see that this is exactly the condition that prevails today on a global scale; in other words, we have the most marvelous petty tyrant that has ever been created, which is the global pathocratic system, the elite system of control which is trying to, well, basically lead us into a third world war, probably a nuclear war, in which millions if not billions of people will die. This is a fairly good little petty tyrant, as Don Juan would put it, and, just to give you an idea, he says, "What the new seers had in mind was a deadly maneuver, in which the petty tyrant is like a mountain peak, and the attributes of warriorship are like climbers who meet at the summit. Usually only four attributes are played. The fifth, wilt, is saved for ultimate confrontations," such as when warriors are facing the the firing squad, so to speak. And those four are control, forbearance, discipline, and timing. You know, anybody that thinks that they are going to operate in this world and bring about any change whatsoever, as G wished would happen, or hoped would happen, which was one of his unconquerable aims, to help release people from this mass hypnosis, they're going to have to use control, forbearance, discipline, and timing, and they're definitely going to have to get over their self-importance. So, Don Juan tells us again, "One of the greatest accomplishments of the seers of the Conquest was a construct called the three-phase progression. By understanding the nature of man" this is very important, this is a prerequisite, to understand the nature of man, "they were able to reach the incontestable conclusion, that if seers could hold their own facing petty tyrants, they could certainly face the unknown with impunity and could even stand in the presence of the unknowable. We know that nothing can temper the spirit of a warrior as much as the challenge of dealing with impossible people in positions of power. Only under those conditions can warriors obtain the sobriety and serenity to stand the pressure of the unknowable." And then Don Juan finally adds, he says, "Let's go back to what I've said about the Conquest. The seers of that time couldn't have found a better ground. The Spaniards were petty tyrants who tested the seers' skills to the limit. After dealing with the conquerors, the seers were capable of facing anything. They were the lucky ones. At that time there were petty tyrants everywhere. After all those marvelous years of abundance of petty tyrants, things changed a great deal. Petty tyrants never again had that scope." Except now, of course. At the time that Castaneda was writing this, I'm sure he didn't foresee what was happening in the present time. "The perfect ingredient for the making of a superb seer is a petty tyrant with unlimited prerogatives. And so, we have a little bit of an understanding of where the work of Carlos Castaneda overlaps the work of G, and even the suspicion that Castaneda may have been influenced by the work of G. Of course, Castaneda asked Don Juan, "Do petty tyrants sometimes win, and destroy the warrior facing them?" "Of course," and this refers us back to the time of the Conquest, "There was a time when warriors died like flies," at the beginning of the conquest. "Their ranks were decimated. The petty tyrants could put anyone to death simply acting on a whim. Under that kind of pressure, seers freely achieved sublime states. It was then that the surviving seers had to exert themselves to the limit to find new ways to avoid the decimation of their numbers." Well, we can learn from this, or we can ignore this, but quite frankly I think that by comparing what G was about and what Don Juan was writing, or saying, what was put into the mouth of Don Juan, through the writings of Carlos Castaneda, who I believe was influenced by G, that we're looking at the very same thing at the present time. Don Juan said, "The new seers used petty tyrants not only to get rid of their self-importance, but to accomplish the very sophisticated maneuver of moving themselves out of this world." And then Don Juan asks, "How do you measure defeat? Anyone who joins the petty tyrant is defeated. To act in anger without control and discipline, to have no forbearance, is to be defeated." And this is what we see to a great extent in this so-called 9/11 truth movement, and anti-war movement, and all the different revolutionary movements, and I believe that that was something that G saw himself, and what he was seeing when he was communicating with these so-called revolutionaries. Notice it says: "To act in anger without control and discipline"- it doesn't say that you should never act in anger, certainly. Anger fuels your actions. You must be angry.

Edit: typo

 

[PepperFritz]

We all know that they will soon be celebrating that their little cloaca of crime and terror is turning 60....

Perhaps you gave some background on this in another thread... but for those who have not read it, could you explain who "they" are, and what "little cloaca of crime and terror" you are referring to?

 

[the rabbit]

Hi Name.
Im not entirely sure what you are asking here. I think I do , and yet I dont. You write that you have been reading and think you have found their underbelly , if you have , then im supposing / assuming others have also.
You ask how wise would it be to frontally attack STS forces, if you mean by wise , does one think your life would be in danger , well the answer to that I think is of course. Is it not ? Even so our lives are in danger at all times.

There are no innocent victims caught in the crossfire in the minds of psychopaths and ponerised unfeeling , uncaring beings , we are all expendable.

You ask ;
"Is there any way of knowing if the usefulness of such an action is greater than the troubles it could potentially cause ?"

And so on.

It sounds like you are asking to be sacrificed like a saint , or if its ok to offer yourself to the cause. Is this what you are asking ?

Are your lessons complete ? Have you more to learn ? If you are in turmoil , clouded , uncertain , this would suggest not.

To cross a line , to make a giant leap i think is a very personal thing , if im making any sense , one knows the probable / possible consequences totally. And thus when one is truly clear , one knows how to act , and what must be done.

To be or not to be , do you know / understand the Soliloquy / monologue ?

It is every knight´s duty to try and conquer the beast within and externally , for me within is the most difficult , and I am sadly nowhere near, and for me I think that is where the first battle takes place , that one won..who knows what is possible.

These are a few things that your post has brought to mind whilst reading it.

 

[ziggystarlust]

This information that you have found seems interesting to me. Dangerous? Probably. But that should not deter you in your pursuit of knowledge. If it is important, perhaps you could find a person or group that might answer your questions regarding the legal matters. An STO group if you catch the drift. Discernment of who or what you are communicating with here, would be the key. Perhaps, if the law theory is proven relevant, you can hand over the information to those more suited to the task of utilization. Good luck!

 

[Ryan]

We all know that they will soon be celebrating that their little cloaca of crime and terror is turning 60, and we know the ugly side of it, and why they hide it behind a massive wall of propaganda, intimidation, subborning, subverting the body politics of many countries ...

In order to combat my helplessness I've been reading thru pertinent laws and I think that I have discovered, legally speaking, their soft underbelly, and ways to harass them in court endlessly in perhaps half of all jurisdictions worldwide. If I decide to go forward with this, I could start sending out letters by next week.

Umm... did I miss something here? Who are "they"?

BTW, I'm not a lawyer, and I dont have the money to consult one.

Maybe I'm confused because I don't know who you're talking about, but in any case it seems to me that launching multiple legal actions with the idea of "harassing" people, when you aren't a lawyer and don't have much money is absolutely retarded in thought. In fact, it sounds downright pathological. Leave that sort of thing to the Eric Pepins of the world. We aren't interested in "harassing" people here. And since you refer to "STS types", you might take note of this little session snippet:

Q: (L) The Lizzies work independently and in opposition to the Cassiopaeans?
A: Independently, not in opposition.
Q: (L) Well then, is there somebody over and above this whole project...
A: We serve others therefore there is no opposition.

If you review the history of the Cassiopaean Experiment and sott.net carefully, you will see at no point have they "attacked" anybody - the attack has always been from someone/something external trying to "get" them - usually because they don't like what is being said on the websites. Indeed, that's what seems to be the main problem for these pathological types - not that a group of people are learning the truth about this world, but rather that they are sharing it with no strings attached. STO behaviour is to share information freely with those that sincerely ask. People coming to QFG websites and reading what is shared there is an act of their own free will - by visiting sott.net people are asking for the information available there. If they do not want the information there, all they have to do is simply avoid visiting the website ever again.

But for some reason, the fact that such a website can be accessed by the general public is intolerable to certain types. The knowledge of psychopathy and ponerology gives us clues as to just why that is...

 

[vinny]

think that I have discovered, legally speaking, their soft underbelly, and ways to harass them in court endlessly in perhaps half of all jurisdictions worldwide. Still, I have some doubts. My requests for comment to the forum would be:
- How wise is it to frontally attack these STS types, knowing their track record ?

Name, You've been on the forum a long time, and forgive me, but I have to say I'm I bit... surprised by the whole framing of this post.

Are you suggesting that you are not an 'STS type'?
and that you can go out there and forcibly impose some 'fix' onto things by, as you say "harassing them in court endlessly"? (whoever they are!). sounds a lot like wishful thinking and 'determining the needs of another' to me. well worse than that, pathological, even. I mean... "harassing them in court endlessly". what are you thinking!?
perhaps there is something going on that is clouding your judgement?

as Ryan says,

STO behaviour is to share information freely with those that sincerely ask.

 

[ziggystarlust]

Ryan, your posts suprizes me a little and I wish to respond to it...

I would generally think that "they" refers to the bad guys, or the Consortium, or whomever aligned and initiated laws that were not in the publics general interest. Perhaps Name could clarify.


You Said ..."but in any case it seems to me that launching MULTIPLE legal actions with the idea of harassing people
when you aren't even a lawyer and don't have much money is absolutely retarted in thought"

First off, at no time did Name ever mention the word MULTIPLE legal actions but used the words "pertinent laws" (plural) pertaining to the idea. We don't know Name's strategy here or whether the legal action would be signular in nature or MULTIPLE. Bit of hyperbole there.
Secondly, so what if she has no formal training in legal manners. If she chooses to learn law, that is her perogative and I commend her for that. Ryan, have you ever read or seen true life stories on television of people being unjustly accussed and incarcerated, but fought back against the system to win. Utilizing their vacant time to bring freedom to themselves and quite possibly others from their misjudged injustice if of the highest degree of intelligence in my book. To me, it speaks greatly of the human spirit, to aquire useful knowledge, to rise up above ignorance and injustice to free oneself from a hellish nightmare. Where do you get off telling anyone what lesson they should persue in life?
Thirdly, the term 'retarded in thought' seems insulting to Name, and I believe you owe her an apology for that.

 

[ziggystarlust]

This post is for "Name"...If it is acceptable to you, I sincerely request that whenever you finish your working idea, that you send it to me via email if possible. It might be best if we both had encrypted email though.

 

[Ryan]

I would generally think that "they" refers to the bad guys, or the Consortium, or whomever aligned and initiated laws that were not in the publics general interest. Perhaps Name could clarify.

And this is the first problem. name asked for feedback initiating multiple legal actions against an unspecified "they". It's kind of difficult to give helpful feedback about a course of action involving no clear details. name's post boils down to asking, "Hey, do you all think I should do this thing I'm thinking about?". Not a very externally considerate way to ask a question.

First off, at no time did Name ever mention the word MULTIPLE legal actions but used the words "pertinent laws" (plural) pertaining to the idea. We don't know Name's strategy here or whether the legal action would be signular in nature or MULTIPLE. Bit of hyperbole there.

This response is nit-picking, and incorrect and illogical nit-picking at that.

ways to harass them in court endlessly in perhaps half of all jurisdictions worldwide.

How exactly does one launch a singular legal action in half of all jurisdictions worldwide?

Secondly, so what if she has no formal training in legal manners.

Umm.. BIG what! If you're the sort of person who, on impulse, would jump in a motorboat and attempt to cross the Pacific Ocean, fine, but don't use this forum to encourage similarly foolhardy and suicidal behaviour.

If she chooses to learn law, that is her perogative and I commend her for that. Ryan, have you ever read or seen true life stories on television of people being unjustly accussed and incarcerated, but fought back against the system to win.

Are you for real?

1) This is NOT a TV show!
2) I didn't see anything in name's post about "defending". In fact, the thread title specifically contains the word "attacking"!

Where do you get off telling anyone what lesson they should persue in life?

I might ask you the same question. I'm not the one encouraging anybody to do anything. And the fact you are leads me to wondering exactly what YOU have invested in this?

Thirdly, the term 'retarded in thought' seems insulting to Name, and I believe you owe her an apology for that.

No insult was intended.

retarded: adj.
slow or limited in intellectual or emotional development or academic progress

Personally, I think that contemplating multiple legal actions against an unspecified "they", for reasons of "harassment", when one has no formal legal training or resources to obtain professional assistance is exactly what I said: retarded in thought.

And you are free to believe whatever you wish. ;)

 

[PepperFritz]

I'm in complete agreement with Ryan on this. Name's post asks for advice and comment, yet provides nothing in the way of specifics that would allow for such advice/comment, even after being asked to do so. That smacks of manipulation to me, suggests he's decided to do something and wants this forum's "approval", but is avoiding providing specifics in case he should not get the "answer" he wants.

I don't think anyone should be "advising" Name on his "plan" until he provides further information, e.g:

We all know that they will soon be celebrating....

Who is "they"?

...that their little cloaca of crime and terror is turning 60....

What specifically are you referring to? What "cloaca of crime and terror is turning 60"?

I've been reading thru pertinent laws...

What "laws" specifically?

..and I think that I have discovered, legally speaking, their soft underbelly, and ways to harass them in court endlessly in perhaps half of all jurisdictions worldwide....

Again, what, specifically, are these "ways"? And what would the purpose and benefit of such "harassment"?

How wise is it to frontally attack these STS types, knowing their track record ?

Again, who are "these STS types", and what "track record" are you referring to? And why do you think an "attack" is an appropriate thing to do?

How do I balance out the 'doing what I think is right' vs. my risk in this?

How on earth is anyone to assess your "risk" when you have provided no details whatsoever about who you are planning to "attack", why you are planning to do so, how, by what means, etc.? And please define what you mean by "what I think is 'right'" -- what on earth does that MEAN?

Is there any way of knowing if the usefulness of such an action is greater than the troubles it could potentially cause ?

Again, how are we to assess the "usefulness" of something you have provided no details whatsoever about? You have done nothing except talk in vague, cryptic generalities. Again, one must wonder how much advice/comment you really want if you can't be bothered to be externally considerate in how you present your request. I also have to wonder about the degree to which you are indulging your own sense of self-importance by posting an extremely vague message about undertaking a "worldwide" "attack" of a "legal" nature at a nameless "they" at considerable "risk" to yourself. How much of this has really been thought out, and how much of it is fantastical self-aggrandizing noise?

 

[name]

I'm sorry. I thought that what I said would be clear to other readers of the forum. Let me then spell out straight what I meant.

It seems as if everybody is at the end of their wits, and helpless, before the crimes of Israel.

I have been reading into national and international law(s), and I think that I have found a way to make it ugly and costly for them to continue engaging in what they do. Because of obvious reasons, I'll explain only part - a small part - of the possibilities I see. In all of this, please remember that I am not a lawyer, and that my understanding of laws, applicability ... is superficial at best. I will try to explain what I understand.

First, International Law(s). A collection of relevant laws and treaties can be found here --> http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/.
The interesting parts in this case, "WAR CRIMES AND CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, INCLUDING GENOCIDE" and "HUMANITARIAN LAW", are almost at the end of the page. They contain the texts of internaitonal treaties which have been signed and ratified by most countries on earth. That means that these treaties have become part of the national legislation of these countries. So, for example, you will find laws against genocide in the penal codes of most of the countries which have signed the "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide".

Second, National laws. As I said, most countries who have signed any of these treaties have national legislation which more or less reflect what is said in these treaties. For an overview of national laws having to do with Genocide plus interesting commentary about them, you may want to look here --> http://www.preventgenocide.org.

If you dig a bit starting at these two pages, you will find savory morsels like, for example, that Israel took over almost 1:1 the already mentioned "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide" into their national laws in March of 1950. This means (or should mean) that almost everything they have done against the Palestinians since then is a crime under their own laws

Third, Jurisdiction. To ask a court from country A to exercise jurisdiction over a crime committed in country B is a hairy matter at best. But that is slowly changing, at least for certain crimes. For example, Germany and some other countries have modified their legislation in order to criminalize certain acts of THEIR citizens abroad. The cause for this was that (IIRC) Germans (Austrians ...) were flying to Thailand by the full plane, or even organizing charter flights, in order to go and have sex with minors (look up "Fickbomber") there, because in Thailand there were (are ?) no laws against it - this became a scandal and caused Germany (and Austria) to amend their laws so as to make such activity punishable.

BUT, that kind of jurisdiction 'extension' applies only to certain crimes (terrorism, kiddy porn and child abuse seem to be 'en vogue'), but not to others, notably to political crimes - what is what genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes are collectively called, and only in some situations. For example, Germany introduced they so-called "Voelkerstrafgesetzbuch" in 2002, which is a law dealing exclusively with these crimes. This law claims "universal jurisdiction" over such crimes, but that is just the marketing - the small print is in paragraph 153f of the German penal procedures code which was introduced together with the law, and which has IMO the effect of voiding the "Voelkerstrafgesetzbuch" altogether (how convenient ...).

To make a long discussion short, this kind of effect seems to be present in almost all jurisdictions: they wont even go near political crimes, not even their own ones - "it's a political thing" as somebody from the Austrian Parliament told me some years back when I asked her why genocide wasn't listed among the crimes for which Austrian courts would prosecute Austrian citizens when committed abroad. To make it even shorter and after having read into legislations of several countries about political crimes, my general impression is that national legislation AND international treaties are worded in a way that these crimes and those who commit them are rather protected than endangered by their crimes. I draw this conclusion from the very restrictive way in which national judicial systems interpret and limit their jurisdiction over these crimes.

Fourth But there are ways around this 'protection in law' for these horrible crimes. Many if not most criminal legislations deal with things like "conspiracy" (yes, it has a legal definition), "complicity", "membership in a (international) criminal (or terrorist) organization", and other very ugly things. And, as we suspect (and in some cases know), people who are otherwise regarded as upstanding citizens go to Israel, perpetrate horrible crimes, and then come back to their countries of origin as if nothing (and in some cases bragging about it), or they openly promote and incite others to do things which fall afoul of standing legislation, or procure money for such activities ... and this is where is can potentially become very ugly for certain individuals.

That would be an overview of what I have found, and in my laymans opinion, it offers enough of a basis to go after them in a big way, to cause them enough trouble to make them think again before they shoot at some refugee child or demolish a house or harass people at a checkpoint ...

Now, my question to the forum was not about the technical part of this, but about "should I" in view of their tradition of disposing of political enemies in a violent way (and I have a responsibility towards my SO - who says 'do it'), in view of my very limited resources, of my very limited knowledge, in view of the ponerisation of the judicial systems everywhere, in view of myself perhaps not having the "right" posture to engage in this, and despite everything that speaks against doing anything at all.

@Ziggystarlust: thanks, but I'd prefer to not do that for now. I think that you (and everybody else) can read into the laws and find novel interpretations or uses of them yourself.

I hope that this explains what I meant, and who are "they" - Heebie-Jeebies taken from another article which appeared here. And thanks to those who understood me anyway.

A quote from Henrys last article, which I think is related to this.

Psychopaths maintain their power through terrorizing their victims into silence. They depend upon fear. Each time you hold back you views out of fear, they have won.

It is time to speak up, to shine the light of truth in all the dark holes dug by the pathocrats. Those dark holes will be our graves if we do not speak out.

"The liberation from this spell comes only through multiplication of facts, which clearly contradict the official doctrine and the promises of psychopathic leaders."

Those facts are available. As we saw above, they are printed in the mainstream media. It is your responsibility to point out the logical inconsistencies and absurdities of the facts as promulgated by the pathocrats. It is your responsibility to speak your mind. It is your responsibility to accept the risks and self-sacrifice. What is there to lose? If you do not speak out, the dire future of a world under psychopathic control is ensured, and you can see where they are leading us: famine, a more and more open police state, war, poverty, and the loss of any rights we have left.

And if you accept the challenge, take on the risks and make the self-sacrifice?

Who knows.

But you do know what the consequences of inaction will be.

You see it. You can do act. Responsibly.

You just cannot stand by and remain silent. Silence is complicity.

Has anybody here ever thought that the feeling of helplessness which has been spoken about here on SOTT, individual or in group, COMES from inaction, and not the other way around ?

 

[vinny]

You think Israel (or any other elite power) obeys the rule of law !? and doesn't have approximately infinite resources at its disposal? Israel is clearly flouting pretty much every international law there is, and yet the world's superpowers are fighting each other off to be first in line to lend their wholehearted support.

Perhaps you might wanna read 'The Controversy of Zion'. Or even just the regular coverage on SOTT

I agree that inaction is complicity, and I can certainly sympathise with the feelings of helplessness, but surely, taking destructive action is worse. Henry's quote contains the word 'responsibly'. You have obviously thought about this a lot, but it is very important to know firstly: the nature and extent of what you/we are 'up against' (if that is even the right way to express it), secondly: what would really be the nature of an 'STO response' or an 'STS response'. these are not simple, immediate realisations. Maybe using the machine of law does have some appropriate application, but this doesn't seem to be it.

 

[PepperFritz]

Name:

I don't know if I am missing something, but here's my take on what you have posted thus far:

You have discovered through your reading that there is a basis in both national and international laws for prosecuting "war crimes", "crimes against humanity", the "crime of genocide", etc. The existence of such laws is a well known fact. That rogue states such as the United States and Israel have committed the kind of crimes that should be prosecuted under such laws is also a well known fact.

However, it is not enough for a law to simply exist; it must be possible to ENFORCE such laws in order for them to be effective. The real issue is why the government and war leaders of these countries have not been aggressively prosecuted under such laws, and why they are not likely to be in the near future. The United States and Israel have both refused to recognize the International Criminal Court, or permit the court to have jurisdiction over their citizens. The United States has unequivocably stated that in the event that the Court attempts to charge/try any its citizens (or any of the citizens of its closest allies, e.g. Israel), it shall be considered and treated as an Act of War and result in armed conflict.

Now, under such circumstances, who is going to ENFORCE such laws? Who exactly is "to go after them in a big way, to cause them enough trouble to make them think again before they shoot at some refugee child or demolish a house or harass people at a checkpoint"? When the United States is considered the world's "police force", who is going to take them and/or their allies on? Even more importantly, WHY would they, politically-speaking?

An American organization called The Center for Constitutional Rights (only one of many worldwide) currently has numerous "lawsuits" it is attempting to bring against both the United States and Israel for war-related crimes. The two examples below will give you some idea of lack of political will that ensures such cases never get off the ground. If organizations like that, with large budgets and a small army of pro-bono lawyers working on their behalf, have not succeeded to date, one has to ask: What would/could YOU do differently in order to achieve a different outcome? What exactly is the "big way" that you "go after them" that other organizations/individuals are not already doing; what kind of resources do you have that would make a difference?

Again, I'm sorry of I'm missing something, but I'm a little befuddled by your "proposal".


German War Crimes Complaint Against Donald Rumsfeld, et al.

Belhas v. Israeli Lieutenant General Moshe Ya’alon

 

[name]

PepperFritz,

thanks for your answer. It is not as easy as the simple fact that there is national and international legislation. Re enforcing them and the strong political will which exists against their enforcement, you are right too. But, even the most corrupt court has at some point two options: prosecute, or be exposed as a fraud ...

Since you talk about the German case of the CCR - let me say that I've read thru it, and also thru the explanation of office of the German prosecutor, and, let me say that (see disclaimer) they stayed well within the law when they declined to prosecute. I am/was astonished that the lawyer who brought the case was apparently unaware of Paragraph 153f of the German Penal Procedures Code and of relevant international treaties and customs in (international) law. The prosecutor rightly says in their statement that under rules of subsidiary jurisdiction, they have no jurisdiction in the case and (IIRC) referred it to the US justice system. You may read their statement here (German) -->
http://www.generalbundesanwalt.de/de/showpress.php?themenid=9&newsid=273

Relevant to this discussion is the paragraph II of their statement - you are even going to read "Forum-Shopping" there, what perhaps says something about the quality of the case brought before them. Let me summarize what they say about the case which Attorney Kaleck brought before them for the CCR:
a) Unproved allegations - He presented neither circumstancial nor material/documentary evidence to prove the allegations (there ARE standards of proof to fulfill in a judicial case)
b) No jurisdiction - Germany has only subsidiary jurisdiction in such cases, and only in cases where i) German nationals are involved ii) Germany is at least in part a scene of the crime iii) there is no other appropriate jurisdiction willing or able to prosecute, none of which conditions were met.
c) No possibility for success of proceedings, meaning that there are scant possibilities of ever apprehending Rumsfeld and the other perps in Germany
d) "Forum shopping" - this is IMO legalese for "we're laughing you out of court because you are unprofessional, rotflmao ha ha ha".
As for the specifics, you may run that page thru google

I think that the statement/answer from the Generalbundesanwalt makes it very clear that the jurisdiction issue is "hairy" as I said above, but also that the failure of a (IMO ill-prepared and possibly sabotaged from the beginning) case should not be discouraging, but a lesson. These are courts of justice, and if we are going to play their game on their parkett we'd better do it by their rules.

As for the reference to the case about Ya'alon, thanks, I know about Ya'alon and about the ATCA, but I was not aware of this case.

Disclaimer: Everything said about law here is _IMHO_ and with the understanding that I am not a lawyer.