|
| Wezwanie do przebudzenia |
|
| Film opisujący mechanizmy ekonomicznej władzy nad światem |
|
| Czy polskie wybory są zagrożone? Anomalie, które budzą niepokój |
|
| Jakie anomalia wyborcze wskazują na fałszerstwa? Jak się przed nimi bronić? Podwójne krzyżyki i nie tylko! |
|
| Szczepionka przeciwko ospie prawdziwej wyzwoliła wirusa AIDS |
|
Epidemia AIDS mogła zostać wywołana przez masową kampanię szczepień, która zlikwidowała ospę prawdziwą. Światowa Organizacja Zdrowia, która kierowała trwającą 13 lat kampanią, bada nowe dowody naukowe sugerujące, że uodpornienie szczepionką Vaccinia przeciwko ospie prawdziwej obudziło niepodejrzewane, uśpione zakażenie ludzkim wirusem obrony immunologicznej (HIV). |
|
| "patriotyzm" po 1989 roku |
|
| komentarz zbędny |
|
| LESZEK MILLER. Najgorszy premier w historii Polski |
|
Dziś wielu stara się przedstawiać go jako autorytet – idol liberalnych mediów, a nawet, ku zaskoczeniu, części młodej prawicy. Ale kiedy spojrzymy na fakty, jego rządy z lat 2001–2004 jawią się jako czas biedy, bezrobocia i gigantycznej korupcji.
|
|
| Israelis protest in Jerusalem against PM Netanyahu |
|
Netanyahoo is a criminal just like Trumpy wumpy
Netanyahoo jest kryminalistą tak samo jak tępy głupek |
|
| Lockdown w Anglii |
|
Była kochanka Borisa Johnsona ujawnia - z kim Premier GB konsultował wprowadzenie stanu wyjątkowego pod pretekstem fikcyjnej pandemii
|
|
| LIST OTWARTY-PETYCJA w interesie publicznym do Marszałków i Radnych wszystkich województw |
|
Drogi Czytelniku!
Jeśli chcesz wzmocnić oddziaływanie poniższego pisma-petycji, to możesz wysłać takie samo albo podobne pismo-petycję od siebie lub większej liczby osób lub od organizacji. |
|
| Bergolio vel Franciszek nagrodzony przez B’nai B’rith |
|
| Na zdjęciu poniżej widzimy dyrektora generalnego B’nai B’rith International Daniela S. Mariaschina, który wręcza papieżowi Bergoglio złoty kielich ozdobiony żydowskimi napisami i symbolami. Jest to symboliczna nagroda przyznana Franciszkowi za jego stałe wsparcie dla tej żydowskiej organizacji masońskiej. |
|
| FDA ogranicza stosowanie szczepionki J&J z powodu powikłań |
|
| Amerykańska agencja zmieniła swoje stanowisko z uwagi na wysokie ryzyko wystąpienia powikłania po przyjęciu preparatu Janssen, czyli zakrzepicy z zespołem małopłytkowości (TTS). |
|
| Hiszpański rząd przyznał się do powietrznego spryskiwania całej ludności chemikaliami |
|
| Podczas strategicznie zaplanowanego „stanu wyjątkowego” covid-19, Organizacja Narodów Zjednoczonych (ONZ) upoważniła hiszpański rząd do rozpylania z nieba śmiertelnych smug chemicznych . 16 kwietnia 2020 r. hiszpański rząd po cichu przyznał, że upoważnił wojsko do rozpylania biocydów na całą populację. |
|
| Imperium KLAUSA SCHWABA i jego marionetki. DAVOS 2022. |
|
| |
|
| Maciej Pawlicki rozsądnie o Pfizer i szczepionkach |
|
Pfizer żąda od Polski zapłaty 6 mld zł!
|
|
| Izby lekarskie to organizacje przestępcze |
|
| |
|
| Warto posłuchać |
|
| Chociaż scyzoryk się w kieszeni otwiera - to musimy zapamiętać takie zdarzenia i przypomnieć przed Trybunałem do spraw zbrodni kowidowych |
|
| Polskie firmy nie obsługuja POLICJANTÓW |
|
|
|
| Czy zaszczepieni staną się własnością koncernów farmaceutycznych? |
|
| Czy szczepienia służą nowoczesnemu niewolnictwu? |
|
| Czy w “szczepionkach anty-Covid” znajdują się hydrożele magneto-reaktywne? |
|
| Magnesy i monety są przyciągane przez miejsca “zaszczepienia” |
|
| Komuszy dogmat «Zielonej Energii» zamroził Teksas |
|
| Sieć energetyczna w Teksasie załamała się pod wpływem temperatur bardziej prawdopodobnych w Sioux Falls niż w San Antonio, pogrążając ponad 4 miliony ludzi w ciemności i pozostawiających ich bez ogrzewania |
|
| Grzegorz Braun odpowiada na Państwa pytania |
|
Monika Jaruzelska zaprasza
|
więcej -> |
|
Ciekawostka - wojna z Irakiem była nielegalna
|
|
 Surprise, surprise: War on Iraq was illegal
War on Iraq was illegal, say top lawyers
A panel of eminent experts will warn that UN authority has been 'seriously weakened' by conflict
By Severin Carrell and Robert Verkaik
25 May 2003
The war on Iraq will be condemned as illegal by a panel of eminent international lawyers at a conference being organised by the actor Corin Redgrave.
The symposium, to be held next Sunday at the Young Vic theatre in London, will also hear senior legal experts allege that the conflict has seriously weakened the authority of the United Nations and potentially threatened global security.
The panellists include Professor Philippe Sands QC, a member of Cherie Booth's Matrix chambers, Professor Christine Chinkin, professor of international law at the London School of Economics, and Jan Kavan, the president of the UN General Assembly and former Czech foreign minister.
Another prominent speaker, Professor Burns Weston, a human rights lawyer at the University of Iowa in the US, fears that other countries might use the American decision to wage war illegally to justify their own unlawful wars.
He is most concerned about India and Pakistan - two nuclear powers in dispute over Kashmir. "It is a very bad precedent for other countries that might seek, in their own lack of wisdom, to emulate the United States," he said.
The event, called "Liberation or War Crime" will be chaired by the former Radio 4 Today programme presenter Sue MacGregor and is expected to attract other prominent figures, including the playwright David Hare, the Booker
Prize-winning Indian writer Arundhati Roy and the former foreign secretary Robin Cook.
Prof Sands, one of 16 prominent international lawyers who earlier this year publicly warned Tony Blair that the war was illegal, said the conflict raised two major issues.
"First, did the Security Council authorise the use of force, and the answer to that is no. And [second] were we misled about the presence of weapons of mass destruction? Apparently, yes. These things are going to come back to haunt us," Prof Sands said.
Mr Redgrave, whose film roles include parts in Four Weddings and A Funeral, Enigma and In the Name of the Father, said one objective in staging and paying for the event was to investigate the damage caused by the war to international peace.
"Very early on, before the war began, it seemed that one of the main casualties of war was the whole fabric of international law and convention," he said. "It seemed to me there was a willingness, indeed a desire, on the part of America at least, to rend that fabric in a way that would almost make it irreparable."
The controversy over the legality of the war partly subsided on Thursday after the US supported an unexpectedly far-reaching resolution at the Security Council guaranteeing Iraq's independence and giving the UN a more powerful role in its reconstruction.
Although the resolution answered widespread concerns that the occupation of Iraq was also illegal - concerns shared by the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith - British lawyers warned there were still serious worries over the legality of the coalition's conduct.
Peter Carter QC, chairman of the Bar Council's human rights committee, said coalition forces were in breach of UN Resolution 1325, which requires participants in a conflict to have particular regard to the rights of women.
Since the war, Mr Carter said, women feared more for their safety because of the frequent looting, chaos and unlawfulness. "Women must feel free to walk the streets and go about their business. It is true to say that Iraqi women during Saddam's rule experienced greater freedoms than in other Arab countries."
Prof Sands said the new UN resolution had, for the first time, cancelled all previous legal or contractual rights to Iraq's oil - giving the coalition freedom to sell the oil to whichever firm they wanted. This raised "far-reaching" questions about the rights of an occupier to control a country's natural resources.
'There was no threat. There was no resolution'
Professor Philippe Sands QC
Director of the Centre on International Courts and Tribunals, University
College London
The war was contrary to international law and it was contrary to international law whether or not they find weapons of mass destruction. The illegality was based on the absence of a Security Council resolution authorising the use of force. I think that is the view of almost every independent commentator.
The claim by the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith - that the war was legal because Saddam Hussein had failed to comply with UN resolutions dating back to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait - has received almost no support outside the UK or the United States from independent academic commentators.
Professor Robert Black QC
Professor of Scots law, Edinburgh University, and architect of the Lockerbie trial in The Hague
It's simple and straightforward. There are only two legal justifications for attacking another country: self-defence, or if the Security Council authorises you to do so. It is perfectly plain that none of the Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq authorised armed intervention. It's possible to cobble together what looks like a legal argument, but the real test of any legal argument is whether a court would accept that argument. I challenged the Attorney General to say what he thought the odds were of the International Court of Justice in The Hague accepting his argument. In my view, the odds against were greater than 10 to 1.
Professor Sean Murphy
Associate professor of law at George Washington University, Washington DC
I think there's a real question to be raised about whether the US, UK and Australian coalition properly intervened in Iraq without Security Council authorisation, and I think there are very sound reasons for saying that the intervention was not permitted. The US-UK legal justification, which is based on Security Council resolutions dating back to 1990-91, isn't credible. When you look closely at the resolutions and the practice of the Security Council, it's clear that the majority of members of the Security Council believed that further authorisation was needed in March 2003 than, in fact, existed.
Professor Vaughan
Lowe Chichele Professor of Public International Law, All Souls College, Oxford
The new resolution provides a firm legal basis for the coalition occupation of Iraq.
It gives the UN a role that is prominent on paper but which, in fact, is not at all powerful on the ground. The coalition practically has a free hand in 'promoting' reform and the formation of an interim administration ... The key question is how far the coalition may proceed with economic and political restructuring in Iraq before the election of a government by the Iraqi people. The resolution does not spell that out; nor does it fix any timetable for the return of power to the Iraqi people. Nor does it stipulate how the massive reconstruction costs of the programme - and the benefits, in terms of commercial contracts - will be distributed.
Professor James Crawford
Whewell Professor of International Law, Jesus College, Cambridge
On the information available, none of the exceptions that permit the use of force applied. There was no UN Security Council authorisation, and no
imminent humanitarian catastrophe, and no imminent threat of the use of force by Iraq. I think it was unlawful in the beginning, and they haven't found anything since to make one change one's mind.
The earlier Security Council resolutions were related to the occupation of Kuwait, and that situation has completely changed. It's very contrived to treat Resolution 1441 as if it authorises the use of force.
Professor Mary Kaldor
Professor of global governance, London School of Economics
Going back to the 1991 UN resolutions is the real weakness of their
argument. It is an awfully long time ago, and it's as though this isn't a new war - as if it is the same war we fought in 1991. I think that it is an incredibly weak legal case. I don't think there's any way we can argue that the Iraq intervention was legitimate, and it's illegitimate for two reasons.
There was no real case that the inspectors weren't dealing with the weapons of mass destruction. And, we're now seeing what a lot of people warned we would see: that this will be bad for [curbing] terrorism rather than good.
26 May 2003 11:27
|
|
3 czerwiec 2003
|
|
przesłała Elżbieta
|
|
|
|
Ważne Powody Zagrożenia USA
lipiec 11, 2005
Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski
|
Armia chce działań - wielkie fiasko
lipiec 20, 2006
Ran HaCohen
|
Kiedy plastykowe wydanie Rzecz(y)pospolitej?
styczeń 18, 2006
Mirosław Naleziński, Gdynia
|
Odpowiadamy
październik 4, 2003
http://angora.pl/
|
Bogactwa naftowe Iraku dla USA i W. Brytanii
The Independent on Sunday
styczeń 8, 2007
Aschurbanipal
|
Kulczyk zebrał owacje na stojąco
IAR
grudzień 9, 2004
|
Sędziaki
wrzesień 10, 2002
Henryk Schulz
|
Dajcie Miłoszowi spocząć w spokoju
sierpień 19, 2004
|
Grypsera dla frajerów
czerwiec 22, 2006
|
Otwarcie wystawy "Zbrodnie w majestacie prawa 1944-1956"
luty 3, 2006
|
Dlaczego politycy wspierają mafie
lipiec 28, 2005
PAP
|
Iran a Kryzys Wpływów USA w Afganistanie
styczeń 30, 2009
Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski
|
Nied?wiedzia przysługa "przyjaciół"
luty 13, 2003
PAP
|
Śmiertelne pasje
sierpień 11, 2008
Mirosław Naleziński, Gdynia
|
Eskalacja na Bliskim Wschodzie i destabilizowanie świata?
styczeń 8, 2007
Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski
|
Prawnicze szambo
marzec 18, 2005
PAP
|
Medal Wolnosci
grudzień 8, 2005
przesłała Elżbieta
|
Stany Zjednoczone - natychmiast won z Iraku! Ręce precz od Iranu!
styczeń 29, 2007
Przedruk z: Workers Vanguard nr 884, 19 stycznia 2
|
Samobójstwa deportowanych
marzec 15, 2005
Mirosław Naleziński, Gdynia
|
"Nareszcie Balcerowicz beknie"
marzec 13, 2006
Przedruk
|
więcej -> |
|
