Αγορά Πολιτών

Τρόπος Συμμετοχής

Χορηγίες

Πολίτες στην Αγορά

Έχουμε 705 επισκέπτες συνδεδεμένους

Επικοινωνία

Γερμανία 004917667046073 (SMS)

7/3/2017, 20:00

Έλληνες, στο έλεος...

 

Harvester's log 16/3/17

 

 

Legal Notice 66

 

Execrable

 

Legal Notice 62

 

  

My story

 

  

Aggression?

 

  

Η Εστία μου

 

  

Why so untidy?

 

  

Αποικιοκρατία

 

  

Εξόντωση Ελλήνων αντιφρονούντων;

 

  

Ζήτημα εμπιστοσύνης

 

  

Μεθοδικότητα

 

  

Ανοικτή Επιστολή πρέσβη ΗΠΑ

Αφορμή, U2RIT vs Ελλάδα;

Βιοηθική

A request to U2RIT

Colonial aggression - 2

Open Letter to UN S.G.

Open Letter to p.C. & p. O.

Δήλωση πρόθεσης επαναπατρισμού

 

Ο "εφιάλτης" της Νυρεμβέργης

Συλλογή Φωτογραφιών

Αίτημα προστασίας, προς Ιταλία

Chroma key, background removal

Science and Ethics

Να συμβάλει και η U2RIT

Θα ξαναφτιάξουν πολλές φορές Άουσβιτς και Zyclon B

 

Split-Screen effect

Η Ζωή είναι Ωραία.

Βόρεια Κορέα

Λευτεριά στους Έλληνες, εξανα- γκαστικά "Εξαφανισμένους"

 

Μυστικές δίκες;

Trustworthiness

Πολιτισμό, ή, απληστία;

Ακραία Στυγνότητα

Η Τέχνη της Επιβίωσης

Political Asylum 3

Επιστροφή στις ρίζες

The Human Cost of Torture

An urgent appeal for solidarity

More obvious than the Sun

Western "culture"

Political Asylum

Έννομη Προστασία

Μια μήνυση που εγείρει ερωτηματικά

 

 

 

Honor your father...

Noise

Creative Greeks

A pair of Dictatorships

International Law and Nations' Trustworthiness PDF Εκτύπωση E-mail
Αξιολόγηση Χρήστη: / 0
ΧείριστοΆριστο 
Συνεννόηση για Διαφύλαξη - Απόψεις
Συντάχθηκε απο τον/την Χρήστος Μπούμπουλης (Christos Boumpoulis)   
Τρίτη, 13 Οκτώβριος 2015 04:42

christos-boumpoulis-100321b.JPG

International human rights law.
International human rights law is a series of the international laws on human rights. International human rights law is based upon the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Charter of the United Nations that declare human dignity and rights of all human being on the earth. Its fundamental philosophy and aim are to prevent war and keep world peace on the earth, with the idea of rule of law.
Human Rights law made by United Nations
United Nations has adopted Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 to affirm all human rights. To give authority to it by international law, United Nations has adopted International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights for civil rights in 1966. Those treaties are to ensure more in detail the contents of human rights and often called "International Human Rights Bill" together with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Further, the United Nations has adopted treaties on human rights to fortify or supply them. as follow:
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide against genocide (adopted in 1948)
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees for refugees (adopted in 1951)
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination against racism (adopted in 1965)
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women for women's rights (adopted in 1979)
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment against torture (adopted in 1984)
Convention on the Rights of the Child for children's rights (adopted in 1989)
Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families for the rights of migrant workers (adopted in 1990)
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities for the rights of persons with disability (adopted in 2006)
And also United Nations has made United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights accoding to the Vienna Declaration and the Yogyakarta Principles for LGBT rights by International Commission of Jurists and approved by the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2006.
United Nations has adopted Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 to affirm all human rights. To give authority to it by international law, United Nations has adopted International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights for civil rights in 1966. Those treaties are to ensure more in detail the contents of human rights and often called "International Human Rights Bill" together with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Further, the United Nations has adopted treaties on human rights to fortify or supply them. as follow:
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide against genocide (adopted in 1948)
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees for refugees (adopted in 1951)
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination against racism (adopted in 1965)
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women for women's rights (adopted in 1979)
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment against torture (adopted in 1984)
Convention on the Rights of the Child for children's rights (adopted in 1989)
Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families for the rights of migrant workers (adopted in 1990)
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities for the rights of persons with disability (adopted in 2006)
And also United Nations has made United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights accoding to the Vienna Declaration and the Yogyakarta Principles for LGBT rights by International Commission of Jurists and approved by the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2006.
 
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees
The United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees is an international agreement that defines who is a refugee, and makes clear what are the rights of individuals who are granted asylum and the responsibilities of nations that grant asylum. It also makes clear which people are not seen as refugees, such as war criminals.
History
The convention was approved at a special United Nations conference on 28 July 1951. It was initially limited to protecting European refugees after World War II but a 1967 protocol removed the geographical and time limits. Because the convention was approved in Geneva, it is often referred to as "the Geneva Convention," though it is not one of the Geneva Conventions specifically dealing with allowable behavior in time of war.
Denmark was the first state to ratify the treaty (on 4 December 1952) and there are now 147 signatories to either the Convention or the Protocol or to both.
Chapter I. Definition of a Refugee
Chapter 1 consists of Articles from 1 to 11. Article 1 of the Convention as amended by the 1967 Protocol provides the definition of a refugee:
"A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.."
 
Convention against Torture
Convention against Torture is a treaty of international human rights law created by United Nations in 1984 that prohibits all kind of torture, any cruel, inhuman treatment or punishment harming the person's dignity.
The Convention also has the optional protocol that enables international organization for human rights investigators to research the prisons in a country that ratifies the protocol for knowing if any torturea or inhuman treatments or punishments prohibited by the Convention are done.
 
THE SECRET GOVERNMENT RULEBOOK FOR LABELING YOU A TERRORIST
The Obama administration has quietly approved a substantial expansion of the terrorist watchlist system, authorizing a secret process that requires neither “concrete facts” nor “irrefutable evidence” to designate an American or foreigner as a terrorist, according to a key government document obtained by The Intercept.
The “March 2013 Watchlisting Guidance,” a 166-page document issued last year by the National Counterterrorism Center, spells out the government’s secret rules for putting individuals on its main terrorist database, as well as the no fly list and the selectee list, which triggers enhanced screening at airports and border crossings. The new guidelines allow individuals to be designated as representatives of terror organizations without any evidence they are actually connected to such organizations, and it gives a single White House official the unilateral authority to place entire “categories” of people the government is tracking onto the no fly and selectee lists. It broadens the authority of government officials to “nominate” people to the watchlists based on what is vaguely described as “fragmentary information.” It also allows for dead people to be watchlisted.
 
CIA forced doctors to violate ethics code to torture suspected terrorists after 9/11
Sarah Boseley, The Guardian, 4 Nov 2013
Doctors were asked to torture detainees for intelligence gathering, and unethical practices continue, review concludes
Doctors and psychologists working for the US military violated the ethical codes of their profession under instruction from the defence department and the CIA to become involved in the torture and degrading treatment of suspected terrorists, an investigation has concluded.
The report of the Taskforce on Preserving Medical Professionalism in National Security Detention Centres concludes that after 9/11, health professionals working with the military and intelligence services “designed and participated in cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment and torture of detainees”.
Medical professionals were in effect told that their ethical mantra “first do no harm” did not apply, because they were not treating people who were ill.
The report lays blame primarily on the defence department (DoD) and the CIA, which required their healthcare staff to put aside any scruples in the interests of intelligence gathering and security practices that caused severe harm to detainees, from waterboarding to sleep deprivation and force-feeding.
The two-year review by the 19-member taskforce, Ethics Abandoned: Medical Professionalism and Detainee Abuse in the War on Terror, supported by the Institute on Medicine as a Profession (IMAP) and the Open Society Foundations, says that the DoD termed those involved in interrogation “safety officers” rather than doctors. Doctors and nurses were required to participate in the force-feeding of prisoners on hunger strike, against the rules of the World Medical Association and the American Medical Association. Doctors and psychologists working for the DoD were required to breach patient confidentiality and share what they knew of the prisoner’s physical and psychological condition with interrogators and were used as interrogators themselves. They also failed to comply with recommendations from the army surgeon general on reporting abuse of detainees.
The CIA’s office of medical services played a critical role in advising the justice department that “enhanced interrogation” methods, such as extended sleep deprivation and waterboarding, which are recognised as forms of torture, were medically acceptable. CIA medical personnel were present when waterboarding was taking place, the taskforce says.
Although the DoD has taken steps to address concerns over practices at Guantánamo Bay in recent years, and the CIA has said it no longer has suspects in detention, the taskforce says that these “changed roles for health professionals and anaemic ethical standards” remain.
“The American public has a right to know that the covenant with its physicians to follow professional ethical expectations is firm regardless of where they serve,” said Dr Gerald Thomson, professor of medicine emeritus at Columbia University and member of the taskforce.
He added: “It’s clear that in the name of national security the military trumped that covenant, and physicians were transformed into agents of the military and performed acts that were contrary to medical ethics and practice. We have a responsibility to make sure this never happens again.”The taskforce says that unethical practices by medical personnel, required by the military, continue today. The DoD “continues to follow policies that undermine standards of professional conduct” for interrogation, hunger strikes, and reporting abuse. Protocols have been issued requiring doctors and nurses to participate in the force-feeding of detainees, including forced extensive bodily restraints for up to two hours twice a day.
Doctors are still required to give interrogators access to medical and psychological information about detainees which they can use to exert pressure on them. Detainees are not permitted to receive treatment for the distress caused by their torture.
“Putting on a uniform does not and should not abrogate the fundamental principles of medical professionalism,” said IMAP president David Rothman. “‘Do no harm’ and ‘put patient interest first’ must apply to all physicians regardless of where they practise.”The taskforce wants a full investigation into the involvement of the medical profession in detention centres. It is also calling for publication of the Senate intelligence committee’s inquiry into CIA practices and wants rules to ensure doctors and psychiatrists working for the military are allowed to abide by the ethical obligations of their profession; they should be prohibited from taking part in interrogation, sharing information from detainees’ medical records with interrogators, or participating in force-feeding, and they should be required to report abuse of detainees.
[www.rawstory.com/2013/11/cia-forced-doctors-to-violate-ethics-code-to-torture-suspected-terrorists-after-911/]
 
Sweden Violated Torture Ban in CIA Rendition
Diplomatic Assurances Against Torture Offer No Protection From Abuse
The United Nations’ ruling that Sweden violated the global torture ban in its involvement in the CIA transfer of an asylum seeker to Egypt is an important step toward establishing accountability for European governments complicit in illegal US renditions, Human Rights Watch said today.
In a decision made public today, the UN Human Rights Committee ruled that diplomatic assurances against torture did not provide an effective safeguard against ill-treatment in the case of an asylum seeker transferred from Sweden to Egypt by CIA operatives in December 2001. The committee decided that Sweden’s involvement in the US transfer of Mohammed al-Zari to Egypt breached the absolute ban on torture, despite assurances of humane treatment provided by Egyptian authorities prior to the rendition.
Human Rights Watch today released a detailed briefing paper answering questions about such “diplomatic assurances.”
“This UN ruling shows that we are slowly but surely getting to the truth about European complicity in illegal US renditions,” said Holly Cartner, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “European parliaments and prosecutors must continue their inquiries into these matters.”
Swedish officials handed over al-Zari and another Egyptian, Ahmed Agiza, to CIA operatives on December 18, 2001 for transfer from Stockholm to Cairo. Both men were asylum seekers in Sweden, and suspected of terrorist activities in Egypt, where torture of such suspects is commonplace. Returns to risk of torture are illegal under international law.
To cover itself, the Swedish government obtained promises from the Egyptian authorities that the men would not be tortured or subjected to the death penalty, and would be given fair trials. Despite post-return monitoring by Swedish diplomats, both men were tortured in Egypt. In April 2004, Agiza was convicted on terrorism charges following a flagrantly unfair trial monitored by Human Rights Watch. Al-Zari was released in October 2003 without charge or trial, and remains under police surveillance in Egypt.
The Human Rights Committee decision stated that Sweden “has not shown that the diplomatic assurances procured were in fact sufficient in the present case to eliminate the risk of ill-treatment to a level consistent” with the ban on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
“The committee found that diplomatic promises did nothing to protect al-Zari from torture,” said Cartner. “Western governments need to wake up to the fact that they can’t trust promises of humane treatment from countries that routinely practice torture.”
In a separate May 2005 ruling on Agiza’s case, the UN Committee Against Torture concluded that Sweden violated the Convention against Torture by illegally expelling him to Egypt, and stated that “procurement of diplomatic assurances [from Egypt], which, moreover, provided no mechanism for their enforcement, did not suffice to protect against this manifest risk.”
The al-Zari and Agiza cases illustrate why diplomatic assurances against torture from governments with a well-documented record of such abuse are worthless. The fact that such governments routinely violate their legal obligations to treat all people in their custody humanely makes it highly unlikely they would safeguard an isolated individual from abuse. Moreover, governments that employ torture regularly deny that they practice this abuse and refuse to investigate claims of it.
The cases also demonstrate that the monitoring of detainees after they are sent back does not add a measure of protection. Torture is a criminal activity of the most serious kind, practiced in secret using techniques that often defy detection – for example, mock drowning, sexual assault, and electricity applied to bodies internally. In many countries, medical personnel in detention facilities monitor the abuse to ensure that the torture is not easily detected.
Detainees subjected to torture are often afraid to complain to anyone about the abuse for fear of reprisals against them or their family members. Even in the unlikely event that torture is confirmed, neither the sending nor receiving government has any incentive to investigate or acknowledge a breach of the assurances as that would amount to admitting involvement in torture.
Sweden has recently been singled out by two significant European bodies investigating illegal CIA rendition and detention activities. In June, Dick Marty, a Swiss senator tasked by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe with investigating European states’ involvement in “extraordinary renditions” and possible secret detention sites, highlighted the al-Zari and Agiza cases in his report. Marty concluded that: “Relying on the principle of trust and on diplomatic assurances given by undemocratic states known not to respect human rights is simply cowardly and hypocritical.”
A special European Parliament committee established to investigate European complicity in extraordinary rendition and the unlawful detention of terrorism suspects by the US government also targeted Sweden as directly complicit in the men’s transfers to torture. In June, this committee called on “Member States [of the EU] to reject altogether reliance on diplomatic assurances against torture.”
The Swedish government must now comply with the Human Rights Committee’s decision in the al-Zari case. The committee has indicated that monetary compensation for the petitioner is one appropriate remedy. Following the Agiza decision, Human Rights Watch communicated to the authorities in Sweden a detailed list of measures that would indicate compliance with that decision, including: granting monetary compensation; permitting a new application for asylum in Sweden; and legislative changes prohibiting the use of diplomatic assurances. To date, Sweden has failed to implement any of these recommendations.
 
“We Kill People Based on Metadata,” Admits Former CIA/NSA Boss
Written by  Alex Newman
Essentially confessing to mass murder and multiple other crimes, retired Gen. Michael Hayden, the former boss of both the NSA and the CIA, admitted that the Obama administration has been murdering people around the world based solely on the so-called metadata collected by U.S. intelligence agencies. The controversial insider’s remarks confirmed growing fears and warnings by critics of the out-of-control federal government that, despite efforts to downplay its unconstitutional spying and assassination programs, Americans have much to be concerned about.
Hayden, a retired general and operative for the globalist Council on Foreign Relations, led the National Security Agency starting under the Clinton administration until 2005 — the same NSA that whistleblower Edward Snowden had recently exposed lawlessly spying on Americans in violation of federal law and the U.S. Constitution. Before taking over in 2006 at the Central Intelligence Agency — the outfit that has carried out much of the federal mass-murder via drone program — Hayden oversaw the massive expansion of NSA’s targeting of Americans.
While credible analysts and critics widely suspect federal officials are still hiding the truth, proponents of the illegal NSA espionage schemes tried to downplay its actions as the “mere” collection of metadata, rather than the actual content of calls and e-mails. Thanks to Hayden’s remarks last month at Johns Hopkins University’s Foreign Affairs Symposium, though, Americans can begin to understand the enormity of the danger — even in the unlikely event that authorities are telling the truth about how far the assaults on constitutionally protected privacy rights actually extend.
“We kill people based on metadata,” Hayden admitted. The startling confession, which has sparked headlines around the world, came after Hayden agreed with another participant at the symposium that metadata can reveal “everything” about a surveillance target. The other participant, Georgetown University Law Center professor David Cole, had quoted NSA General Counsel Stewart Baker as saying, “Metadata absolutely tells you everything about somebody’s life. If you have enough metadata, you don’t really need content.”
Hayden agreed, calling the description on the usefulness of metadata “absolutely correct.” Elements of the NSA’s Orwellian, Fourth Amendment-shredding espionage regime targeting hundreds of millions of Americans officially came to light after former contractor Snowden leaked documents about it. The revelations sparked a massive public outcry, which officials tried to downplay by claiming that the only information being collected on Americans without warrants or even probable cause was metadata. That collected data, though, includes details such as who is communicating, when, where, for how long, with whom, and more.
Of course, it is now public knowledge that the Obama administration has murdered thousands of people around the world including women, children, and even an American teenager, using its drones and missiles. In fact, the White House even claims to believe it has the legal authority to murder its victims despite never charging or prosecuting them for a crime — much less securing a conviction in a court of law. Immediately following the shocking admission and a brief pause, though, Hayden tried to suggest that the mass-murder program relying on metadata does not apply domestically.
“But that’s not what we do with this metadata,” the former CIA and NSA boss said after pausing for a moment, perhaps realizing the gravity of the admission he had just made. “It’s really important to understand the program in its entirety, not the potentiality of the program, but how the program is actually conducted.” In other words, after admitting that the federal government murders people based on metadata — can you imagine if Putin admitted doing that? — Hayden quickly tried to claim that the information collected on Americans is not used for that purpose. At least not yet.
It was not clear whether such data played a role in Obama’s selection of the multiple Americans, including a 16-year-old boy in Yemen looking for his father, murdered by drone thus far. At the event, the ex-CIA and -NSA boss then continued trying to soothe public fears over the awesome powers usurped by the federal government.
According to Hayden’s version, the NSA has been obtaining phone records from companies since October of 2001. Much of the unconstitutional snooping regime has been justified under the misnamed “Patriot” Act. The NSA then “puts them in a lockbox” that is supposedly “under very strict limitations” in terms of access. Hayden then gave a hypothetical example of how a phone number connected to a supposed “terrorist” could be checked with lawlessly collected metadata to supposedly advance “national security.”
“What it cannot do are all those things that ... allows someone to create your social network, your social interactions, your patterns of behavior,” Hayden continued after dropping the bombshell confession. “One could make the argument that could be useful, [or] that could be illegal, but it’s not done. In this debate, it’s important to distinguish what might be done with what is being done.” With NSA bosses having been exposed lying even to lawmakers under oath, however, analysts say taking them at their word would be foolish at best.
Of course, the cat Hayden let out of the bag on metadata being used to select murder targets was not entirely a surprise to analysts who have been closely following developments in the growing cloud of scandal surrounding the NSA. In February, journalists Glen Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill, citing Snowden’s leaks and comments by U.S. officials, had reported essentially the same thing: that metadata collected by the NSA is used to pick targets for extermination. Numerous innocent people have “absolutely” been killed under the program, according to a former drone operator quoted in their Intercept report.
In reality, since no trials were ever conducted and all people are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, critics say all of the victims thus far have been innocent — at least as far as the law is concerned. Estimates suggest thousands of people from Pakistan and Yemen to Afghanistan and Somalia — many of them simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, known as “collateral damage” — have been murdered by drones so far. Obama personally approves each assassination, the Nobel Peace Prize recipient confessed publicly.
Despite officials hiding behind the half-baked veneer of the terror war, the details and admissions offered by Hayden should be extremely alarming to everyday Americans. Indeed, in recent years, the federal government has produced official documents claiming that essentially anyone with an opinion it disagrees with may be a potential “terrorist.” That includes pro-life activists, liberty lovers, constitutionalists, libertarians, conservatives, Christians, environmentalists, states’ rights proponents, advocates for national sovereignty, veterans, Orthodox Jews, and more.
While the NSA lawlessly gathers the data, the CIA has been leading much of the assassination program. As The New American reported in 2011, the agency’s mass-murder-via-drone program accelerated quickly under the Obama administration as victims from Africa to Asia were executed by missiles dropped from the sky. Even Americans are fair game, the administration claims. The developments were so extreme that a former senior intelligence official told the Washington Post that the CIA had been turned into “one hell of a killing machine.” Critics said that in addition to a brazen violation of the U.S. Constitution, the global murder programs may constitute war crimes as well.
In his May 10 report about the symposium and Hayden’s admission there, Georgetown University’s Cole noted that lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have come together to rein in some of the worst NSA abuses uncovered thus far. The effort, which would put a few tepid restrictions on the NSA’s ability to continue violating Americans’ rights, is known as the “USA Freedom Act.” However, he added in the New York Review of Books, much more needs to be done to properly deal with the issue. “The biggest mistake any of us could make would be to conclude that this bill solves the problem,” Cole said.
[www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/18244-we-kill-people-based-on-metadata-admits-former-cia-nsa-boss]
 
Former NSA & CIA director: 'We kill people based on metadata'
 
All the United Nations' member states have signed the international treaties related to the "International Human Rights Bill". Therefore, all those member states are legally and ethicaly bound:
  • to protect, unconditionally, the human rigths of all the people who are inside their corresponding borders,
  • to protect, unconditionally, the refugees and do whatever is necessery to proportionally contribute in the alteration of the conditions, within their homelands, who made them refugees, in order for them to return there, as soon as possible.
  • to protect, unconditionally, from being tortured, all the people who are inside their corresponding borders.
There are no exeptions, nor, excuses, for niglecting and/or avoiding to fullfil those legal and moral obligations.
For example, if, economically and/or military, strong, third  countries exercise strong, brutal or simingly/false legitimate, political and/or economic influences for covering up their international and/or colonial, crimes and/or misdeeds, then, those influences should be ignored in order for international law to prevail.
Let us have some strait words.
I am, a Greek citizen, a human rights and political activist and I believe, a Greek patriot.
There is a conflict of interests between U.K., U.S.A., Russia, Israel, Turkey and me.
I advocate for the Freedom, and the National Sovereignity of my motherland Greece. For this reason:
  • I don't want neither revisionist countries like Russia, Turkey and Israel, nor, countries like Turkey who posse arbitrary territorial claims against Greece, to permanently install some of their vital economic interests (oil and/or natural gas pipelines and large economic investments on Greece's "privatized" public infrastructure) on Greek soil, in order to avoid potential future territorial claims and/or land anexation.
  • I don't want Greece's "privatized" public infrustructure to end up under the economic control of countries, like U.K. and U.S.A. who have shown in the past evidence that they ingore the rules of the competitive free economic market by treating their foreign investments like being a part of their own national sovereignity.
  • I don't want Greece to become subjected under an uncontrolably intense external political influence of the kind that Israel and Turkey are being exercizing systematically in various occasions.
  • I don't want, neither extremely asymetrical economic players, nor, players with essential pending issues with regard to the human rights (China) to permanently install, on Greek soil, some of their vital economic interests.
  • I don't want Greece's vital public infrastructure, by a false privatization to become exposed to a potential falling under the control of paramilitaries who might abuse those infrastructure in order to degrade Greece's National Sovereignity.
  • I don't want Greece to pay for the illigal part of hers enormous external Debt. In this matter, I wish the international law to prevail.
At the same time the followings are currently taking place:
  • U.K. and U.S.A. (Fraport) and Russia (Santel) are almost dictating the granting of the economic control of Greece's 14 airports.
  • A natural gas pipeline for the transport of Russian gas towards the E.U. and which is being proposed to become located at one of the most politically sensitive part of Greece, at Thrace, is being advocated by, Russia, Turkey, U.S.A. (indirectly) and E.U.
  • Turkey and Russia, propably, are being exersizing an external economic and political influnce upon the Northern (above Larisa city) part of Greece which I find that exceeds the boundaries of a friendly bilateral relationship.
  • Israel, propably, is being exersizing an external economic and political influence upon, Creta, Cyprus and central Greece which I find that exceds the boundaries of a friendly bilateral relationship.
  • U.K. propably, is being exersizing an external political influence upon certtain Greece's vital social foundations which I find that exceeds the boundaries of a friendly bilateral relationship.
  • E.U. remains hopelessly passive towards the crucial pending issues with regard to E.U.'s structure and dynamics.
  • Greece's government seems like being politically influence by the U.K. and U.S.A. in a degree between, moderate and inexcusable.
  • U.K., U.S.A, Russia, Israel and Turkey may have developed a quasi organic interaction among each other. They offer indication that they react to the rest of the world like have become a uniqe and loose organic entity.
For the above reasons I strongly propose:
  • E.U. GRexit.
  • The adoption of a Greek monetary unit, drachma.
  • NATO GRexit.
  • Selective open economy with import/export tarrifs.
  • Establishment of light and medium production infrastructure.
  • Normalization of Greece's social foundations.
  • A new true Democratic indegenous Greek government.
  • Re-establishment of Greece's bilateral external relationships with the U2RIT and E.U.
The conflict of interests, between me and other specific international interested parties is obvious. So, having taken for granted the enormous luck of morality within international relationships, what is going to be my fate?
Questionaire:
  • Am I going to become/ or I am, already, included in C.I.A.'s database for suspect terrorists?
  • Am I going to become assasinated by C.I.A.'s operatives (car accident, etc)?
  • Why almost each time I pass through Sengen's national borders NATO's afiliated police authorities search all my belongings and almost even under my neils?
  • During the past 17 months which I am traveling at northern Europe, I have been subjected to some dozens of NATO's afiliated police inspections and during most of them the police officers were persisting doing systematically a kind of questions which seems like being a memory examination and which I have been answering correctly (for how long I have been in their country? - sense of time, etc). Might be possible that some unfriendly parties wish to slunder me as faltily being mentally incompetent in order to get me out of their way for illegitimately exploiting my motherland Greece?

Τελευταία Ενημέρωση στις Κυριακή, 18 Οκτώβριος 2015 10:45