From: Bob Young
To: heb_roots_chr@geocities.com" <heb_roots_chr@geocities.com>
Subject: Big Brother
A
COMPUTER ID CODE
The NEW YORK TIMES leads on Monday with a detailed report that has
President Clinton quietly laying plans to assign every American a
computer ID code that would be used to track medical history from
cradle to grave!
The electronic code would be the first comprehensive national
identification system since the Social Security number was introduced
in 1935, reports the TIMES.
**********************************************************************
World
Federalist Association Web Site
http://www.wfa.org/
Article
located at:
http://www.wfa.org/aa9806.htm
The Diplomatic Conference to finalize a treaty establishing a
permanent International Criminal Court is scheduled for 15 June
through 17 July, 1998 in Rome, Italy. U.S. participation could be the
key ingredient to a successful conference. Despite the fact that both
President Clinton and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright publicly
support the idea of the Court, the Department of Defense (DOD) has
played an integral role in negatively influencing the administration
by voicing its reservations about the ICC.
The Pentagon perceives the ICC as a threat with the potential to
compromise the safety and civil rights of its troops involved in
peacekeeping missions. Under current plans, DOD fears that American
soldiers will be subject to frivolous and politically-motivated
investigations. It cautions against an ICC Statute which includes
overly broad definitions of war crimes and stifles the Security
Council's role as the primary institution responsible for the
maintenance of international security.
*********************************************************************
Sunday, July 19, 1998 25 Tammuz 5758
Jerusalem Post - Internet Edition
Treaty
to create permanent international
war
crimes tribunal
By
MARILYN HENRY and news agencies
NEW
YORK (July 19) - UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan
yesterday
hailed a treaty creating the world's first
permanent
international war crimes tribunal as a
"giant
step forward" and appealed to a reluctant US
to
join the pact.
But
Israel, one of the initiators of the tribunal,
was
forced to vote against its establishment on the
grounds
the Arab countries had politicized it by
including
an article determining that the settlements
in
the West Bank and Gaza Strip constitute "war
crimes."
The
article also enables the prosecution of anyone
who
acts to transfer population in the territories.
Annan
spoke at the treaty's signing ceremony in Rome.
The
historic treaty won overwhelming approval Friday
night
after nearly five weeks of talks and years of
preliminary
negotiations.
"It's
a great hope and a giant step forward in the
rule
of law that a few years ago nobody would have
thought
possible," Annan said. "No doubt many of us
would
have liked a court vested with even more
powers,
but we must not minimize the breakthrough of
this
achievement.
"I
hope the US and other countries will come aboard,"
Annan
said. "I hope the US position is not final. I
regret
we couldn't bridge all the differences."
The
landmark treaty, created a half-century after the
Nuremberg
trials, would, if ratified, create a
permanent
international court to prosecute genocide
and
war crimes.
After
a five-week UN meeting in Rome, 120 nations
endorsed
the treaty in a secret ballot. Seven voted
against
it and 21 abstained. The opponents included
Israel,
the US, Libya, Algeria, Qatar and China.
It
must now be ratified by at least 60 nations be
implemented.
"The
court is the only even-handed deterrent against
the
commission of war crimes," said Justice Richard
Goldstone
of South Africa, who served from 1994-1996
as
the chief prosecutor for the UN's International
Criminal
Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for
Rwanda.
"I'm
relieved but I am disappointed," he said,
referring
to the American opposition. "The US has
joined
rogue states in opposing this."
Many
of the opponents of a permanent court, he said,
are
those engaged in civil wars and who are likely to
commit
war crimes.
The
Yugoslavia and Rwanda tribunals, which were
created
by the UN Security Council, have limited
jurisdiction.
Since Nuremberg, there have been
efforts
to create a permanent international tribunal
with
broad powers and jurisdiction to prosecute war
crimes,
genocide and crimes against humanity.
The
US had insisted that only sovereign states or the
Security
Council had the authority to refer cases for
prosecution.
It
also vigorously sought to exempt American citizens
from
the court's jurisdiction, fearing that there are
circumstances
in which American soldiers could face
prosecution.
US
State Department spokesman James Rubin said the
outline
for the court "opens up the possibility of
politically
motivated and unjustified prosecution,
which
is unacceptable to us."
Goldstone
dismissed the US objections. "They are not
all
going to be Libyan and Cuban judges," he said,
adding,
"all the Europeans approved. How are European
interests
different than those of the US?"
However,
he was sympathetic to Jerusalem's
opposition.
"Israel
has more justification than the US, because
it
has been treated unfairly by the international
community,"
Goldstone said in Washington, where he
was
attending a convention of Women's American ORT.
Israel's
representatives at the conference were
retired
judge Eli Natan, Foreign Ministry legal
adviser
Alan Baker, and Deputy State Attorney Rahel
Sukar.
Attorney-General
Elyakim Rubinstein participated at
the
opening of the conference last month and told
participants
how important such a tribunal would be
for
the Jewish people following the Holocaust.
Before
the vote, Natan and Baker expressed Israel's
objections
to the politicization of the tribunal and
condemned
the attempt to place settlements on the
same
plane as war crimes, in contradiction to both
international
law and political reality.
The
Rome treaty, if ratified, would create the
International
Criminal Court, which would be based in
The
Hague.
The
court would have a full-time prosecutor with
authority
to initiate investigations, and 18 judges
from
an equal number of countries. Under the treaty,
a
case also could originate from the Security Council
or
be referred from a nation.
The
court would not have universal jurisdiction.
Nations
that join the court must accept its
jurisdiction
over genocide and crimes against
humanity.
States
would be able to reject its jurisdiction over
war
crimes for the first seven years of its
existence.
However,
there are some circumstances in which the
court
would have jurisdiction over citizens of
non-party
states.
Britain,
Germany and Canada has pressed for the most
independent
and powerful court possible.
Although
the final outline reflected a series of
compromises,
the treaty remained a defeat for the US
marathon
lobbying.
Ratification
of the treaty is expected to take years.
In
the interim, it is not certain if the US intended
to
simply ignore or to undermine the court.
The
American absence would be sharply felt, as the US
is
needed to exert its political and economic clout
to
compel potential violators to join the court,
Goldstone
said.
***********************************************************************
To:
heb_roots_chr@geocities.com
From: Barry Chamish (Roots and Branch
Association)
Subject: Politics: "COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS ISSUES
ULTIMATUM
TO ISRAEL" by Barry Chamish
Politics: "COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS ISSUES
ULTIMATUM
TO ISRAEL"
by Barry Chamish
BET SHEMESH, ISRAEL, July 21, 1998, Root & Branch: The Council on
Foreign Relations (CFR) is out of the closet! Remember the date, July
17, 1998 and the place, the Op-Ed page of the Jerusalem Post. On that
date in that publication, Henry Siegman, who according to the Post is
"a senior fellow at the Council On Foreign Relations in New York,"
threatened Israel with extinction if it does not obey American (read
CFR) wishes and dictates.
Mr. Siegman's Op-Ed essay begins with the thesis that Prime Minister
Netanyahu's offer of a 13.1% withdrawal from territory in return for
the PLO living up to its signed commitments is a "tactic Netanyahu has
resorted to repeatedly to camouflage his own government's violations
of reciprocity..."
In other words, the fact that the PLO has not changed its charter by
eliminating clauses calling for Israel's violent destruction, nor
extradited murderers of Israelis, but has added 40,000 more
"policemen" than permitted, etc., should be ignored, or best of all,
forgiven because Israel is violating the accords by not giving in
until the PLO lives up to its bargain.
Let's skip the rest of Mr. Siegman's stupid essay and go straight to
what the CFR - speaking through Mr. Siegman - threatens to do to
Israel unless the Israelis do what they are told.
If Israel does not do what it is told, the Apocalypse will come in May
1999, when the dealine for implentation of the Oslo Accord is reached.
What will follow is "a sudden downward spiral that will return the
region to the conflict and violence that characterized it for nearly
half a century."
Who will be to blame for this? Netanyahu, of course!
Quoting Haaretz, Mr. Siegman warns that the situation is similar to
the days prior to the CFR-ignited Yom Kippur War (I have written
extensively on Henry Kissinger, the CFR, and the Yom Kippur War),
which was "a disaster brought on by a diplomatic freeze, boastful
self-confidence, contempt for the Arab adversary and a nation which
followed its leaders into destructive apathy."
This time, the war to be launched against Israel will be much uglier,
"given the imminent proliferation of missiles and weapons of mass
destruction." Once Israel is turned to rubble, "Israelis will have no
one to blame but themselves."
There is a way out, says Siegman. Israel is a democracy and the
"Knesset can oust the prime minister."
In the final paragraph we find the CFR's threat if Prime Minister
Netanyahu is not removed from his office:
"They have not done so, and will therefore have few claims on others
in dealing with the failure's consequences. You cannot
repudiate US diplomatc efforts in the name of Israeli democracy, and
then demand that the US intervene in the conflict triggered by that
repudiation in order to save the Middle East's 'only democracy.'"
There you have it, folks. From the pen of Henry Siegman, the head of
the notorious CFR Task Force of July 1997, which demanded Israel's
withdrawal to its 1948 borders everywhere, including in Jerusalem. If
Israel does not tow the line, we should prepare for the end and not
expect the U.S. to bail us out.
I have previously speculated that since Netanyahu was groomed for
power by the CFR, he was in their pockets. After Seigman's tirade
against Netanyahu in the Jerusalem Post on July 17, 1998, I now
acknowledge that Netanyahu is in the midst of a deadly struggle with
his former bosses.
Netanyahu will need all the support we can muster to insure his
victory against the evil that the CFR represents.
Barry Chamish,
Bet Shemesh, Israel
------------------------------------------------------------
Barry Chamish is an Israeli investigative journalist
------------------------------------------------------------
R&B EDITOR'S NOTE:
Root & Branch Information Services are a forum for the expression of
different points of view. The views expressed in articles that we
distribute are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect
official positions of the Root & Branch Association.
**********************************************************************