Αγορά Πολιτών

Τρόπος Συμμετοχής

Χορηγίες

Πολίτες στην Αγορά

Έχουμε 1068 επισκέπτες συνδεδεμένους

Επικοινωνία

Γερμανία 004917667046073

The Absolute Evil

 

Gang-stalking Greeks

 

Byzantine Atrocities

 

European Dissidents ALARM

 

Human Rights' Court

 

The used up men

 

Dissidents - USG RICO crimes

 

Open Letter to Theresa May

 

Open Letter to António Guterres UN's SG

 

Triangulation - Zersetzen

 

Open Letter to Andrew Parker, MI5

  

Πράξεις ποταπές - Despicable choices

 

 

My father's death

 

Cavitation damage

 

Burglary and vandalism

 

Dry mini submarine

 

Message to Bundeswehr 2

 

Message to Bundeswehr 1

 

“Tough” guys and TOUGH guys

 

Μοναδική λύση, το Χόλιγουντ

 

Charlatans

 

Zeppelin: Beyond Gravity

 

Foreign intervention in Greece?

 

Η ανελεύθερη Ελλάδα

 

Η Ελλάδα καταγώγιο;

 

Αν.Επ. Π. Παυλόπουλο

  

Intangible prisons

 

Plausible deniability

 

Images of German w & s

 

Crimes against Humanity

 

"Chimera" - "Bellerophon"

 

pr. Donald Trump

 

  

Legal Notice 87

 

Βδέλλες, αποικιοκρατικές

 

Being a German

 

Legal Notice 84

 

Dirty colonial methods

 

Georgi Markov, BG - KGB

 

Samples of Barbarity

 

Ελλάδα - αποκόλληση

 

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

Entertainment-Crimes – Settler-Colonialism – War-Crimes PDF Εκτύπωση E-mail
Αξιολόγηση Χρήστη: / 0
ΧείριστοΆριστο 
Συνεννόηση για Δράση - Απόψεις
Συντάχθηκε απο τον/την Χρήστος Μπούμπουλης (Christos Boumpoulis)   
Σάββατο, 24 Νοέμβριος 2018 03:58
Ursula von der Leyen


  

Entertainment-Crimes – Settler-Colonialism – War-Crimes


This article is structured as a line of my subjective thoughts.

Earlier I red an article at the www.berliner-zeitung.de about an alleged “scandal” with regard to the German Minister of Defence Mrs. Ursula von der Leyen. That article was mentioning more than 350 millions euros as a measure of that alleged “scandal”. Then, I red another article for the same supposed “scandal” at www.dw.de, though this article was mentioning 200 million euros.

The descrepancy between the monetary measures of these two articles motivated me to look for Mrs. Ursula von der Leyen’s biography.

After having red at wikipedia the related biography which informed me that Mrs. von der Layen, is one of the most honorable, the most aristocratic and the most reach Ladies in Europe, I wondered, which one is the less probable case, that the sun tomorrow morning is going to rise from the West, or, that the, controlled by the colonizing Nations, mass media did not fabricated a fake news, about the honorable Mrs. von der Layen?

As the notion of “fake news” remains, unavoidably, intertweened with the notion of “entertainment-crimes”, the above, alleged “crime” in Germany brought to my mind the similar patern of behavior, with regard to the Greek mass media which keep iterating, for the past few decades, in my first fatherland. Therefore, I continue my line of thoughts about the related circumstances in Greece and finally, I shall return the German momentum.


In Greece, accordingly, the Greek mass media, systematically, and for some decades now, keep, literary, “bombarding” the Greek civilians with “news” about politicans’, seemingly authentic, “scandals” when it is absolutely obvious, because since the Greek Civil War and then everything in Greece is being totally controlled by the colonising United Kingdom, that the supposed “perpetrators” of these supposed “scandals” equally with the supposed “denunciators” of these supposed “scandals” belong, with no exception, to the British colonising army, namely, they are members of Greece’s colonising-settlers.

Therefore, I wondered, what might be the reason for all these “entertainment-crimes” (and/or “scandals”, it works the same way) originating from the Greek mass media?

For finding the answer to that question I had to write down the factual evidence:


1. Greece is an occupied country within which a dictatorship has been established.

2. The instigators of Greece’s occupation and dictatorship are the settler-colonising Nations of the U2RIT informal “federation”.

3. The main trait of the settler-colonialism is the urge for, initially, placing, and then, legitimising, the colonising-settlers.


The combination of, studying the above factual evidence list and my long personal experience of the Greek circumstances, resulted to resolve this issue as follows:


The mass media in Greece keep, literary, “bombarding” the Greek civilians with all these information “garbage” about the supposed “scandals” related, usually, with theaft of public money, in order to obstruct these civilians from realising the actual and most essential SCANDALS related to the legalisation of the colonising-settlers which have been placed upon Greek soil while committing the War Crime of ”The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory”. In other words, in Greece, colonising-settlers politicians accuse other colonising-settlers politicians about fake and/or entertainment-crimes, and colonising-settlers journalists publicize at the “Greek” mass media articles about these fake and/or “entertainment” accusations, in order for the indigenous Greek citizens not to realise about, literary, the “orgy” of illegitimate legalization of colonising-settlers, during the past sixty years, and which, progressively, leads to the Greek Nation’s total vanishing.

Now, I return to the Germany’s circumstances.

Currently, the existing, one, uniqe and major issue, withing the European Continent, is the emergence, within the public opinion, of the knowledge with regard to the ongoing settler-colonisation of the European Continent, which has been accomplished by the existing European, legitimate political dissidents. This fact, combined with the, according to my opinion, fake “news” about Mrs. Ursula von der Leyen, leads to the, almost certain, conclusion that, the colonisers are perpetrating a diversion in order to keep the public opinion occupied with fake “entertainment-crimes” in order for them to exterminate, one way or another, one, many or all, the existing European legitimate political dissidents.

From the early ‘70s since today, my family and me, we have been suffered from the colonisers criminality beyong words can describe. And we are not the only ones. For this reason I have, involuntarily, developed deep knowledge about the colonisers’ mentality. This knowledge together with the above mentioned evidence and conclusions are enouph for me to address to the United Kingdom’s Prime Minister, Mrs, Teresa May, and tell her:


Look Rambo (2008) Final Fight - Sylvester Stallone

www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjpeR6Zn_HA


Your Excellency, Mrs. Teresa May,

Since your British Nation has committed, from the Greek Civil War and then, and against the innocent and kind Greek Nation, most of the crimes which constitute the notion of the “war crimes”, what might be the reason for all this pseudo-courtesy of covertly attempting to neutralise the remaining European political dissidents instead, of applying other more effective, more economical and more honest methods?

The European political dissidents, we are innocent; we are honest; we are legitimate; we are patriots.

Your Gourkhas, your other “martial races” and your “drugged and maddened with opiates beforehand” European deserters, they may, slander as; brain implant us; degrade our health; torture us; illegitimately imprison us, and assassinate us.

And then, what?

Would it be comfortable, for you and your Nation, inhabiting our, not so large planet Earth, along with 6.5 billions, not so friendly, inhabitans?

Sincerely,


Christos Boumpoulis

Greek and quasi German citizen


P.S.: My message to the remaining European political dissidents is, for them and for a period of one month, to employ all legitimate, preventive measures in order to protect, their own lives, their good health and their freedom, from the contemporary colonisers’ routhlessness.



Der Klassiker: Alte Sirene Alarmierung - old classic siren

www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8yIE1ZFEwI


Exhibits


Στο στόχαστρο της κριτικής βρίσκεται η Γερμανίδα υπουργός Άμυνας Ούρσουλα φον ντερ Λάιεν για διασπάθιση δημοσίου χρήματος και νεποτισμό. Η απόφαση για εξεταστική επιτροπή της Βουλής θα ληφθεί τον Δεκέμβριο.

Περισσότερα από 200 εκατομμύρια ευρώ για τις υπηρεσίες εξωτερικών συμβούλων δαπάνησε το γερμανικό υπουργείο Άμυνας μέσα σε δύο μόλις χρόνια και μάλιστα παραβιάζοντας τους κανόνες ανάθεσης, διαπίστωσε το Γερμανικό Ομοσπονδιακό Ελεγκτικό Συνέδριο.

Και σαν νη μην έφθαναν αυτά το Ελεγκτικό Συνέδριο προσάπτει στο υπουργείο Άμυνας ότι προχώρησε στην ενοικίαση πολυτελούς ακινήτου στο Βερολίνο για την υπηρεσία αντιμετώπισης κυβερνοεπιθέσεων με ενοίκιο 36.000 ευρώ το μήνα χωρίς να λάβει υπόψη φθηνότερες επιλογές.

Θα συσταθεί εξεταστική επιτροπή;

Source: https://m.dw.com/el/σκάνδαλο-διαφθοράς-στο-υπουργείο-άμυνας/a-46425344


Ermittlungen gegen das Verteidigungsministerium?

Derweil schlug im fernen Berlin ein Medienbericht einen weiteren Funken, der sich für Ursula von der Leyen womöglich zu einem noch größeren Katastrophenfall auswachsen kann: Wie der Spiegel jetzt meldete, hat der Bundesrechnungshof Ermittlungen gegen das Verteidigungsministerium aufgenommen – mit dem Verdacht, dass von der Leyens Haus rechtswidrig externe Berater für ihr Ministerium einstellte und bezahlte.

Tatsächlich schwelt auch dieser Vorgang schon seit Längerem: Bereits am 7. August beschrieben die Rechnungsprüfer des Bundes in einem 17-seitigen Bericht detailliert, wie das Ministerium offenbar auf illegale Beraterleistungen abrief.

Demnach haben sie in einem Einzelfall aufgedeckt, dass das Verteidigungsministerium Aufträge im Wert von zunächst acht Millionen Euro für externe Consultants für das neu eingerichtete Cyber-Kommando unter falschen Angaben vergeben hat.
Demnach haben sie in einem Einzelfall aufgedeckt, dass das Verteidigungsministerium Aufträge im Wert von zunächst acht Millionen Euro für externe Consultants für das neu eingerichtete Cyber-Kommando unter falschen Angaben vergeben hat.

So seien für ein IT-Projekt der Bundeswehr namens „CIT Quadrat“ Haushaltstöpfe des Bundes angezapft worden, die dafür gar nicht gedacht sind. Mit „CIT Quadrant“ modernisiert die Truppe seit sechs Jahren ihre nichtmilitärischen IT-Systeme – bislang flossen dafür schon rund 350 Millionen Euro.

Beraterleistungen per Rahmenvertrag bezahlt

Laut dem Bericht forderte das Wehrressort von März 2017 bis Juni 2018 jedoch Beraterleistungen aus dem Rahmenvertrag mit der Registriernummer 20237 an, der ausdrücklich nur für Einrichtung und Pflege von IBM-Software-Produkten in den Ministerien angelegt ist.

Laut Rechnungshof wurden Berater, die Tagessätze zwischen 900 und 1700 Euro abrechneten, für „allgemeine Beratungs- und Unterstützungsleistungen zu den Bereichen IT-Strategie und IT-Management“ angefordert und aus dem Rahmenvertrag bezahlt, meldet der Spiegel.

Mit diesen Rahmenverträgen sollen Beraterleistungen für einzelne Ministerien einfacher angefordert werden können – immerhin setzt von der Leyen verstärkt auf dieses Mittel, um ihr Haus zu modernisieren.

Zeitknoten für externe Berater

Für bestimmte Themengebiete wurden mit Unternehmen Zeitkonten vereinbart. Aus diesen können Ministerien externe Berater für bestimmte Projekte abrufen, ohne dass man diese zeitintensiv ausschreiben muss. Durch die sachfremde Nutzung habe das Ministerium „gegen Vergaberecht verstoßen und diese Leistungen vergaberechtswidrig abrufen lassen“, so die Rechnungsprüfer.

Die Nervosität im Ministerium dürfte groß sein, denn das Budget für Consultants ist riesig: Allein für die Reform der Rüstungsbeschaffung wurden 2016 externe Verträge für mehr als 200 Millionen Euro geschlossen. Dieser Etat wird laut Spiegel komplett über eben jene Rahmenverträge abgewickelt, die der Rechnungshof nun prüfte und beanstandete.

Entsprechend fiel die Reaktion nicht ganz so laut aus wie im Fall des offensichtlichen Moorbrandes im Emsland: Das Ministerium bestätigte in einer internen Antwort die Vorwürfe eher defensiv: Man teile die Einschätzung der Prüfer und werde für das Projekt „CIT Quadrat“ keinerlei Leistungen mehr aus dem Rahmenvertrag 20237 abrufen, zitiert der Spiegel daraus.

Bleibt abzuwarten, wie schnell sich dieser Schwelbrand ausbreitet.

Source: https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/politik/von-der-leyen-unter-druck-ministerium-vergab-wohl-rechtswidrige-beratervertraege-31342974


Ursula von der Leyen

Ursula Gertrud von der Leyen (née Albrecht; born 8 October 1958) is a Germanpolitician who has held the position of Minister of Defence since 2013, and she is the first woman in German history to hold that office. A physicianby profession, she previously served as the Federal Minister of Labour and Social Affairsfrom 2009 to 2013 and the Federal Minister of Senior Citizens, Women and Youth from 2005 to 2009. She is a member of the centre-right Christian Democratic Union.

Family and early life

Ursula von der Leyen was born in Ixelles, Brussels, where her father Ernst Albrecht worked as a senior official (Chef de Cabinet, later Director-General) at the European Commission from the commission's establishment in 1958. She lived in Brussels until she was 13 years old and attended the European School there. In 1971 the family relocated to Lehrte in Hanover after her father had become CEO of Bahlsenand involved in state politics in Lower Saxony.[6] Her father served as Prime Minister of Lower Saxony from 1976 to 1990.

Ursula von der Leyen is a descendant of Baron Ludwig Knoop, a cotton merchant from Bremen and one of the most successful entrepreneurs of the 19th century Russian Empire.[7]She is the niece of the conductor George Alexander Albrecht and a first cousin of the conductor Marc Albrecht.

She is married to Heiko von der Leyen, a professor of medicine, the CEO of a medical engineering company and a member of the von der Leyen family, an aristocratic family noted as silk industrialists. She met him at a university choir in Göttingen.[8] They have seven children, David (1987), Sophie (1989), Donata (1992), twins Victoria and Johanna (1994), Egmont (1998) and Gracia (1999).[9] The von der Leyen family are Lutheran members of the Evangelical Church of Germany.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursula_von_der_Leyen


THE GERMAN CARD” BY GERD-HELMUT KOMOSSA, MEMBER OF MAD (MILITÄRISCHER ABSCHIRM DIENST / GERMAN MILITARY INTELLIGENCE): BERLIN IS WASHINGTON’S VASSAL

The state treaty, dated May 21, 1949 and classified by BND as top secret, suggests restrictions of state sovereignty of the Federal Republic of Germany, introduced for a period until 2099. These restrictions include the provision that the winning coalition exercise complete control over Germany’s mass media and communications;

Source: https://aladinsmiraclelamp.wordpress.com/2016/08/29/the-german-card-by-gerd-helmut-komossa-member-of-mad-militarischer-abschirm-dienst-german-military-intelligence-berlin-is-washingtons-vassal/


Entertainment Crimes and COINTELPRO

In a larger sense, the press engages in what Jeff Cohen has called propaganda from the center. I would modify that by saying that the press and the government engage in both propaganda and terrorism from the phony center. The phony center is the place where the system works. It is the place where no human rights violations happen within the U.S., and where everything runs smoothly so businesses and corporations can go on making money. It is not Republican or Democratic. It is the status quo minus all the unfortunate and ugly realities and events that might cause ripples. Crime and crime coverage fit right into the phony center, though, because this gives the system some bad guys to chase and catch, showing how the system works and even polices itself. State crimes are almost never mentioned, and white-collar crimes are not mentioned often. It is mostly crimes by people who are in what might be called the lower classes, except that in the phony center there is no such thing as class in America. Crime coverage also serves very effectively to scare the public, so they will willingly accede to authority and, increasingly of late, surrender more of their liberties. (There are also the high-profile “entertainment crimes” which can displace real news for months.) Terrorism from the center is any act of terrorism that tends to reinforce the impression of the phony center. It can serve to discredit “extremists” as well as to terrorize dissidents who might threaten the power of the elites. This terrorism might include public acts to be misreported on the news or cointelpro actions secretly carried out against people and groups.

Source: https://geeldon.wordpress.com/2010/11/16/part-ii-resisting-the-mind-control-state/


The Greek Constitution is being systematically and overtly violated (Γ Κασιμάτης: 1ο Μνημόνιο - Πραξικόπημα & Κατοχή - www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_DJKs_LjsI - Greece has fallen under the political state of a mere Dictatorship. The prominent Greek, constitutional law professor George Kasimatis testifies that, there is a coup d' étet in Greece and that, the Eurozone member-States are financially supporting it.).


Greece has fallen under illegitimate occupation and illegitimate vassalage (Γεώργιος Κασσιμάτης η Ελλάδα βρίσκεται υπό παράνομη κατοχή και υποτέλεια – www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJnSxZcEIJc – The prominent constitutional law professor George Kassimatis testifies that, Greece has fallen under illegitimate occupation and illegitimate vassalage.)


The retired Greek Army General Mr. George Aifantis at his speach on 15/5/2016, from 21' 10" till 23' 15" describes how, during the Greek civil war, the colonialists were manipulating (like puppets), simultaneously, both sides of the conflict, in order to compensate, each occassion, the dissapointment of the one side by arranging for an corresponding preorganized lost battle of the other side. Video: Γεώργιος Αϋφαντής & Ελεύθεροι Ενωμένοι Έλληνες 2ο συνέδριο - www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCSL1Rw5sWE


War Crimes

The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.

  1. For the purpose of this Statute, ‘war crimes’ means:

    1. Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:

      1. Wilful killing

      2. Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;

      3. Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;

      4. Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;

      5. Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power;

      6. Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;

      7. Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement;

      8. Taking of hostages.

    2. Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

      1. Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;

      2. Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;

      3. Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;

      4. Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;

      5. Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;

      6. Killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

      7. Making improper use of a flag of truce, of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury;

      8. The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory;

      9. Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives;

      10. Subjecting persons who are in the power of an adverse party to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are neither justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his or her interest, and which cause death to or seriously endanger the health of such person or persons;

      11. Killing or wounding treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;

      12. Declaring that no quarter will be given;

      13. Destroying or seizing the enemy's property unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;

      14. Declaring abolished, suspended or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party;

      15. Compelling the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war;

      16. Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault;

      17. Employing poison or poisoned weapons;

      18. Employing asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all analogous liquids, materials or devices;

      19. Employing bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions;

      20. Employing weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering or which are inherently indiscriminate in violation of the international law of armed conflict, provided that such weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare are the subject of a comprehensive prohibition and are included in an annex to this Statute, by an amendment in accordance with the relevant provisions set forth in articles 121 and 123;

      21. Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

      22. Committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, as defined in article 7, paragraph 2 (f), enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence also constituting a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions;

      23. Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations;

      24. Intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material, medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law;

      25. Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions;

      26. Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into the national armed forces or using them to participate actively in hostilities.

    3. In the case of an armed conflict not of an international character, serious violations of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts committed against persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention or any other cause:

      1. Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

      2. Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

      3. Taking of hostages;

      4. The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all judicial guarantees which are generally recognized as indispensable.

    4. Paragraph 2 (c) applies to armed conflicts not of an international character and thus does not apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence or other acts of a similar nature.

    5. Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts not of an international character, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

      1. Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;

      2. Intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material, medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law;

      3. Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;

      4. Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives;

      5. Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault;

      6. Committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, as defined in article 7, paragraph 2 (f), enforced sterilization, and any other form of sexual violence also constituting a serious violation of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions;

      7. Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into armed forces or groups or using them to participate actively in hostilities;

      8. Ordering the displacement of the civilian population for reasons related to the conflict, unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand;

      9. Killing or wounding treacherously a combatant adversary;

      10. Declaring that no quarter will be given;

      11. Subjecting persons who are in the power of another party to the conflict to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are neither justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his or her interest, and which cause death to or seriously endanger the health of such person or persons;

      12. Destroying or seizing the property of an adversary unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of the conflict;

    6. Paragraph 2 (e) applies to armed conflicts not of an international character and thus does not apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence or other acts of a similar nature. It applies to armed conflicts that take place in the territory of a State when there is protracted armed conflict between governmental authorities and organized armed groups or between such groups.

  2. Nothing in paragraph 2 (c) and (e) shall affect the responsibility of a Government to maintain or re-establish law and order in the State or to defend the unity and territorial integrity of the State, by all legitimate means.

Source: http://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/war-crimes.html


U.S. Settler-Colonialism and Genocide Policies against Native Americans

By Dr. Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz

Historian

US policies and actions related to Indigenous peoples, though often termed “racist” or “discriminatory,” are rarely depicted as what they are: classic cases of imperialism and a particular form of colonialism—settler colonialism. As anthropologist Patrick Wolfe writes, “The question of genocide is never far from discussions of settler colonialism. Land is life—or, at least, land is necessary for life.”i The history of the United States is a history of settler colonialism.

The extension of the United States from sea to shining sea was the intention and design of the country’s founders. “Free” land was the magnet that attracted European settlers. After the war for independence but preceding the writing of the US Constitution, the Continental Congress produced the Northwest Ordinance. This was the first law of the incipient republic, revealing the motive for those desiring independence. It was the blueprint for gobbling up the British-protected Indian Territory (“Ohio Country”) on the other side of the Appalachians and Alleghenies. Britain had made settlement there illegal with the Proclamation of 1763.

In 1801, President Jefferson aptly described the new settler state’s intentions for horizontal and vertical continental expansion, stating: “However our present interests may restrain us within our own limits, it is impossible not to look forward to distant times, when our rapid multiplication will expand itself beyond those limits and cover the whole northern, if not the southern continent, with a people speaking the same language, governed in similar form by similar laws.” This vision of manifest destiny found form a few years later in the Monroe Doctrine, signaling the intention of annexing or dominating former Spanish colonial territories in the Americas and the Pacific, which would be put into practice during the rest of the century.

The form of colonialism that the Indigenous peoples of North America have experienced was modern from the beginning: the expansion of European corporations, backed by government armies, into foreign areas, with subsequent expropriation of lands and resources. Settler colonialism requires a genocidal policy. Native nations and communities, while struggling to maintain fundamental values and collectivity, have from the beginning resisted modern colonialism using both defensive and offensive techniques, including the modern forms of armed resistance of national liberation movements and what now is called terrorism. In every instance they have fought and continue to fight for survival as peoples. The objective of US authorities was to terminate their existence as peoples—not as random individuals. This is the very definition of modern genocide.

The objective of US colonialist authorities was to terminate their existence as peoples—not as random individuals. This is the very definition of modern genocide as contrasted with premodern instances of extreme violence that did not have the goal of extinction. The United States as a socioeconomic and political entity is a result of this centuries-long and ongoing colonial process. Modern Indigenous nations and communities are societies formed by their resistance to colonialism, through which they have carried their practices and histories. It is breathtaking, but no miracle, that they have survived as peoples.

Settler-colonialism requires violence or the threat of violence to attain its goals, which then forms the foundation of the United States’ system. People do not hand over their land, resources, children, and futures without a fight, and that fight is met with violence. In employing the force necessary to accomplish its expansionist goals, a colonizing regime institutionalizes violence. The notion that settler-indigenous conflict is an inevitable product of cultural differences and misunderstandings, or that violence was committed equally by the colonized and the colonizer, blurs the nature of the historical processes. Euro-American colonialism, an aspect of the capitalist economic globalization, had from its beginnings a genocidal tendency.

So, what constitutes genocide? My colleague on the panel, Gary Clayton Anderson, in his recent book, “Ethnic Cleansing and the Indian,” argues: “Genocide will never become a widely accepted characterization for what happened in North America, because large numbers of Indians survived and because policies of mass murder on a scale similar to events in central Europe, Cambodia, or Rwanda were never implemented.”ii There are fatal errors in this assessment.

The term “genocide” was coined following the Shoah, or Holocaust, and its prohibition was enshrined in the United Nations convention presented in 1948 and adopted in 1951: the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The convention is not retroactive but is applicable to US-Indigenous relations since 1988, when the US Senate ratified it. The genocide convention is an essential tool for historical analysis of the effects of colonialism in any era, and particularly in US history.

In the convention, any one of five acts is considered genocide if “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”:


(a) killing members of the group;

(b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.iii


The followings acts are punishable:


(a) Genocide;

(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;

(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;

(d) Attempt to commit genocide;

(e) Complicity in genocide.


The term “genocide” is often incorrectly used, such as in Dr. Anderson’s assessment, to describe extreme examples of mass murder, the death of vast numbers of people, as, for instance in Cambodia. What took place in Cambodia was horrific, but it does not fall under the terms of the Genocide Convention, as the Convention specifically refers to a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, with individuals within that group targeted by a government or its agents because they are members of the group or by attacking the underpinnings of the group’s existence as a group being met with the intent to destroy that group in whole or in part. The Cambodian government committed crimes against humanity, but not genocide. Genocide is not an act simply worse than anything else, rather a specific kind of act. The term, “ethnic cleansing,” is a descriptive term created by humanitarian interventionists to describe what was said to be happening in the 1990s wars among the republics of Yugoslavia. It is a descriptive term, not a term of international humanitarian law.

Although clearly the Holocaust was the most extreme of all genocides, the bar set by the Nazis is not the bar required to be considered genocide. The title of the Genocide convention is the “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,” so the law is about preventing genocide by identifying the elements of government policy, rather than only punishment after the fact. Most importantly, genocide does not have to be complete to be considered genocide.

US history, as well as inherited Indigenous trauma, cannot be understood without dealing with the genocide that the United States committed against Indigenous peoples. From the colonial period through the founding of the United States and continuing in the twentieth century, this has entailed torture, terror, sexual abuse, massacres, systematic military occupations, removals of Indigenous peoples from their ancestral territories, forced removal of Native American children to military-like boarding schools, allotment, and a policy of termination.

Within the logic of settler-colonialism, genocide was the inherent overall policy of the United States from its founding, but there are also specific documented policies of genocide on the part of US administrations that can be identified in at least four distinct periods: the Jacksonian era of forced removal; the California gold rush in Northern California; during the Civil War and in the post Civil War era of the so-called Indian Wars in the Southwest and the Great Plains; and the 1950s termination period; additionally, there is the overlapping period of compulsory boarding schools, 1870s to 1960s. The Carlisle boarding school, founded by US Army officer Richard Henry Pratt in 1879, became a model for others established by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Pratt said in a speech in 1892, “A great general has said that the only good Indian is a dead one. In a sense, I agree with the sentiment, but only in this: that all the Indian there is in the race should be dead. Kill the Indian in him and save the man.”

Cases of genocide carried out as policy may be found in historical documents as well as in the oral histories of Indigenous communities. An example from 1873 is typical, with General William T. Sherman writing, “We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children . . . during an assault, the soldiers can not pause to distinguish between male and female, or even discriminate as to age.”iv

The so-called “Indian Wars” technically ended around 1880, although the Wounded Knee massacre occurred a decade later. Clearly an act with genocidal intent, it is still officially considered a “battle” in the annals of US military genealogy. Congressional Medals of Honor were bestowed on twenty of the soldiers involved. A monument was built at Fort Riley, Kansas, to honor the soldiers killed by friendly fire. A battle streamer was created to honor the event and added to other streamers that are displayed at the Pentagon, West Point, and army bases throughout the world. L. Frank Baum, a Dakota Territory settler later famous for writing The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, edited the Aberdeen Saturday Pioneer at the time. Five days after the sickening event at Wounded Knee, on January 3, 1891, he wrote, “The Pioneer has before declared that our only safety depends upon the total extermination of the Indians. Having wronged them for centuries we had better, in order to protect our civilization, follow it up by one or more wrong and wipe these untamed and untamable creatures from the face of the earth.”

Whether 1880 or 1890, most of the collective land base that Native Nations secured through hard fought for treaties made with the United States was lost after that date.

After the end of the Indian Wars, came allotment, another policy of genocide of Native nations as nations, as peoples, the dissolution of the group. Taking the Sioux Nation as an example, even before the Dawes Allotment Act of 1884 was implemented, and with the Black Hills already illegally confiscated by the federal government, a government commission arrived in Sioux territory from Washington, DC, in 1888 with a proposal to reduce the Sioux Nation to six small reservations, a scheme that would leave nine million acres open for Euro-American settlement. The commission found it impossible to obtain signatures of the required three-fourths of the nation as required under the 1868 treaty, and so returned to Washington with a recommendation that the government ignore the treaty and take the land without Sioux consent. The only means to accomplish that goal was legislation, Congress having relieved the government of the obligation to negotiate a treaty. Congress commissioned General George Crook to head a delegation to try again, this time with an offer of $1.50 per acre. In a series of manipulations and dealings with leaders whose people were now starving, the commission garnered the needed signatures. The great Sioux Nation was broken into small islands soon surrounded on all sides by European immigrants, with much of the reservation land a checkerboard with settlers on allotments or leased land.v Creating these isolated reservations broke the historical relationships between clans and communities of the Sioux Nation and opened areas where Europeans settled. It also allowed the Bureau of Indian Affairs to exercise tighter control, buttressed by the bureau’s boarding school system. The Sun Dance, the annual ceremony that had brought Sioux together and reinforced national unity, was outlawed, along with other religious ceremonies. Despite the Sioux people’s weak position under late-nineteenth-century colonial domination, they managed to begin building a modest cattle-ranching business to replace their former bison-hunting economy. In 1903, the US Supreme Court ruled, in Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, that a March 3, 1871, appropriations rider was constitutional and that Congress had “plenary” power to manage Indian property. The Office of Indian Affairs could thus dispose of Indian lands and resources regardless of the terms of previous treaty provisions. Legislation followed that opened the reservations to settlement through leasing and even sale of allotments taken out of trust. Nearly all prime grazing lands came to be occupied by non-Indian ranchers by the 1920s.

By the time of the New Deal–Collier era and nullification of Indian land allotment under the Indian Reorganization Act, non-Indians outnumbered Indians on the Sioux reservations three to one. However, “tribal governments” imposed in the wake of the Indian Reorganization Act proved particularly harmful and divisive for the Sioux.”vi Concerning this measure, the late Mathew King, elder traditional historian of the Oglala Sioux (Pine Ridge), observed: “The Bureau of Indian Affairs drew up the constitution and by-laws of this organization with the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. This was the introduction of home rule. . . . The traditional people still hang on to their Treaty, for we are a sovereign nation. We have our own government.”vii “Home rule,” or neocolonialism, proved a short-lived policy, however, for in the early 1950s the United States developed its termination policy, with legislation ordering gradual eradication of every reservation and even the tribal governments.viii At the time of termination and relocation, per capita annual income on the Sioux reservations stood at $355, while that in nearby South Dakota towns was $2,500. Despite these circumstances, in pursuing its termination policy, the Bureau of Indian Affairs advocated the reduction of services and introduced its program to relocate Indians to urban industrial centers, with a high percentage of Sioux moving to San Francisco and Denver in search of jobs.ix

The situations of other Indigenous Nations were similar.

Pawnee Attorney Walter R. Echo-Hawk writes:


In 1881, Indian landholdings in the United States had plummeted to 156 million acres. By 1934, only about 50 million acres remained (an area the size of Idaho and Washington) as a result of the General Allotment Act of 1887. During World War II, the government took 500,000 more acres for military use. Over one hundred tribes, bands, and Rancherias relinquished their lands under various acts of Congress during the termination era of the 1950s. By 1955, the indigenous land base had shrunk to just 2.3 percent of its [size at the end of the Indian wars].x


According to the current consensus among historians, the wholesale transfer of land from Indigenous to Euro-American hands that occurred in the Americas after 1492 is due less to British and US American invasion, warfare, refugee conditions, and genocidal policies in North America than to the bacteria that the invaders unwittingly brought with them. Historian Colin Calloway is among the proponents of this theory writing, “Epidemic diseases would have caused massive depopulation in the Americas whether brought by European invaders or brought home by Native American traders.”xi Such an absolutist assertion renders any other fate for the Indigenous peoples improbable. This is what anthropologist Michael Wilcox has dubbed “the terminal narrative.” Professor Calloway is a careful and widely respected historian of Indigenous North America, but his conclusion articulates a default assumption. The thinking behind the assumption is both ahistorical and illogical in that Europe itself lost a third to one-half of its population to infectious disease during medieval pandemics. The principle reason the consensus view is wrong and ahistorical is that it erases the effects of settler colonialism with its antecedents in the Spanish “Reconquest” and the English conquest of Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. By the time Spain, Portugal, and Britain arrived to colonize the Americas, their methods of eradicating peoples or forcing them into dependency and servitude were ingrained, streamlined, and effective.

Whatever disagreement may exist about the size of precolonial Indigenous populations, no one doubts that a rapid demographic decline occurred in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, its timing from region to region depending on when conquest and colonization began. Nearly all the population areas of the Americas were reduced by 90 percent following the onset of colonizing projects, decreasing the targeted Indigenous populations of the Americas from a one hundred million to ten million. Commonly referred to as the most extreme demographic disaster—framed as natural—in human history, it was rarely called genocide until the rise of Indigenous movements in the mid-twentieth century forged new questions.

US scholar Benjamin Keen acknowledges that historians “accept uncritically a fatalistic ‘epidemic plus lack of acquired immunity’ explanation for the shrinkage of Indian populations, without sufficient attention to the socioeconomic factors . . . which predisposed the natives to succumb to even slight infections.”xii Other scholars agree. Geographer William M. Denevan, while not ignoring the existence of widespread epidemic diseases, has emphasized the role of warfare, which reinforced the lethal impact of disease.

Source: http://brewminate.com/u-s-settler-colonialism-and-genocide-policies-against-native-americans/


(Ex-FBI Whistleblower, Lawyer, Judge) Geral Sosbee Statement on FBI/CIA/NSA’s Global Intelligence Stalking Operations

The FBI then further terrorize the target by poisonings, pumping toxic fumes into the target’s residence, attacking the target with a variety of bio-chemical-viral agents, and DEW-ELF military weaponry. Everywhere the target goes, he/she is marginalized, demonized, and endures character assassination based on these secret, civil court orders. No constitutional protections from civil abuse apply.

In my case, the FBI hijacked my life in revenge using a secret FMJ court in El Paso, Texas, in 1988. From that moment to now, my life is a living hell. I was homeless for a decade. For the past 25 years, I have been forced to move about 30 times from one apartment to another. The FBI engages drug dealers, common criminals, and foreign nationals to assault, harass, and try to pick a fight with me. All government employees engage in harassment and threats when I meet them. (ICE, DHS, IRS, US Marshall, US Border Patrol, police, Texas and DPS, and Work Force Commission.) Senator John Kornan, etc., helped FBI terrorize me. Even local police and their private security guards eagerly pick on me for their FBI friends.

Any attempt to flee the USA is a hopeless exercise because all governments honor the FMJ secret orders against targets. (See my experiences in Thailand.)

The goal is to provoke a violent response from the target and then to present to the insane FMJ a recommendation for hospitalization in a mental ward or imprisonment in jail with coordination with controlled district attorneys.

Recently, thugs have assaulted me in the mall, in movie theatres, in grocery stores, libraries, and on the streets. FBI operatives also assault me with their cars in traffic and then speed off in the opposite direction. A few nights ago when I and my wife were strolling, two FBI thugs described below stalked and assaulted us in their late model Ford truck. (Hispanic male, 25 years, 160 pounds; Hispanic female, 25 years, 5’6”, 170 pounds.) The male pulled out his smart phone and tried to engage us in his gibberish; the female remained quiet as though she was a witness. Finally, after about four minutes, I asked my wife why the two thugs stopped to truck to speak with us. . . I could not hear due of the loss of hearing caused by my hearing aid).

My wife responded that the Hispanic male was crazy and pretended to need money. The female sat stupidly listening….. “

Barbara Hartwell: This the kind of thing that goes on and on. It’s like he can’t go anywhere without being accosted by these thugs. They are trying to do an “extreme provocation.” To provoke to say something and they’ll record what he says… oh, he’s hostile, or whatever.

Ramola D: I think what Geral is describing here is political persecution to a T of the kind that Solzhenitsyn was describing in the Soviet Union.

Barbara Hartwell: Exactly. It’s the same m.o. I have debriefed people from Soviet gulags who told me the kind of things that happened to them. And these are exactly the same kind of tactics. But it even gets worse…. This involves toxic fumes being pumped in through the air conditioning or heating systems. This is a total horror.

Source: https://www.gangstalkingmindcontrolcults.com/ex-fbi-whistleblower-lawyer-judge-geral-sosbee-statement-on-global-intelligence-stalking-operations/


Note: the photo was found here

https://www.handelsblatt.com/images/ursula-von-der-leyen-im-irak/20948122/2-format2020.jpg

 

Τελευταία Ενημέρωση στις Σάββατο, 24 Νοέμβριος 2018 04:48