International Criminal Court is made up of Assembly of States Parties. Assembly of States Parties consists of one representative from each state that ratifies the International Criminal Court. Assembly of States Parties elect 18 judges that serve 9 year terms. The judges serve in one of three chambers: 1) Pretrial Chamber; consisting of "not less than six judges," 2) Trial Chamber; consisting of "not less than six judges," and 3) Appeals Chamber; consisting of "not less than four judges and the Presidency." The Presidency consists of a President and two Vice Presidents elected by the 18 judges.
Pretrial Chamber may be carried out by three judges assigned to a particular case or by any one of the three judges assigned to a particular case. Pretrial Chamber functions include ruling on jurisdiction, issuing warrants, issuing subpoenas, determining issues of jurisdiction, determining issues of admissibility, and similar jurisdictional matters.
Trial Chamber functions include hearing and deciding the cases brought before them without a jury.
Assembly of States Parties elect Office of the Prosecutor that serve 9 year term. Prosecutor, Deputy, and Office of the Prosecutor are responsible for investigating and bringing person or persons accused of an International Criminal Court Crime or Crimes such as "the crime of genocide; crimes against humanity; war crimes; and the crime of aggression."
International Criminal Court Crime or Crimes are also defined to include: "murder," "extermination," "enslavement," "deportation," "forcible transfer of populations without grounds permitted under international law," "torture," "rape," "enforced prostitution," "sexual slavery," "forced pregnancy," "enforced sterilization," "persecution against any identifiable group," "apartheid," and "other inhumane acts of a similar character."
"The crime of genocide; crimes against humanity; war crimes" are each defined in separate articles of International Criminal Court. "The crime of aggression" is not mentioned again and not defined by International Criminal Court. "The crime of aggression" is to be set by Commission to Establish an International Criminal Court by "proposals for a provision on aggression, including the definition and elements of crimes of aggression and the conditions under which the International Criminal Court shall exercise its jurisdiction." United States objected to this provision declaring only U.N. Security Council can act on matters of aggression under Article VII of the U.N. Charter.
Assembly of States Parties "shall cooperate with Office of the Prosecutor," "conform national laws to meet the requirements of the International Criminal Court," "use national police powers and facilities to capture individuals," and "confiscate property when directed to do so by Office of the Prosecutor." Non participating state or states may enter into an ad hoc agreement to participate on a case by case basis. Non cooperative state or states will be referred to Assembly of States Parties and to U.N. Security Council. No definition set for Assembly of States Parties and U.N. Security Council to do in the event of non cooperative state or states.
International Criminal Court can set sentences of up to 30 years and life in prison sentences. International Criminal Court can confiscate assets of any kind. Assembly of States Parties agree to use national police powers and facilities to enforce the International Criminal Court judgment or judgments.
United States proposed Office of the Prosecutor be limited by requiring the specific approval of the state or states in which an investigation would occur, was not approved.
United States proposed U.N. Security Council approve all investigations, was not approved. Such a proposal would have allowed the United States to use veto power to block prosecution of United States citizen or citizens. A compromise allows the U.N. Security Council the ability to delay any investigation by 12 months. United States is not able to block investigation or investigations of United States citizen or citizens. Veto power can only delay. United States citizen or citizens on foreign soil, military or civilian, cannot be protected by United States from investigation, arrest, detention, asset confiscation, conviction, and imprisonment by International Criminal Court.
United States Constitution and United States Bill of Rights would be suspended if brought before International Criminal Court. International Criminal Court endangers constitutional protections such as "prohibition against double jeopardy," "right to trial by an impartial jury," and "right of the accused to confront the witnesses against him."
International Criminal Court is to be financed through assessment of participating states on the same basis of their assessment to the U.N.. International Criminal Court can confiscate property and assets of the accused and convert those assets to International Criminal Court resources upon conviction. International Criminal Court can accept gifts and contributions from any nation, organization, corporation, and individual which is forbidden for U.N. by U.N. Charter. International Criminal Court also has a trust fund to compensate victims and power to set amounts for such compensation.
International Criminal Court has, is, and will develop new and wide rules that only must be approved by Assembly of States Parties. New and wide rules can only be amended after seven years and require a two thirds majority of Assembly of States Parties.
Too early to speculate about the impact International Criminal Court will have on United States and state or states. Certain observers of International Criminal Court make clear that many of the states that voted for International Criminal Court expect to use International Criminal Court to attack United States and United States citizen or citizens. The official newspaper for International Criminal Court, TerraViva, accused President Bush of committing "the single worst blood bath of the war against Iraq" and accused President Clinton of "genocide because of the economic embargo against Iraq." What is clear about International Criminal Court is world has the legal instrument to attack the United States for crimes of defending and spreading governance, development, and democracy as understood by the United States Constitution, United States Bill of Rights, and United States.
President of United States, United States Senate, and United States House of Representatives have sufficient grounds to refuse to ratify and to fund the International Criminal Court. If United States ratify the International Criminal Court, open a Pandora's Box of arbitrary and politicized justice.
Friday, August 19, 2005
Thursday, August 18, 2005
Reassessing the War on Terror by Harlan Ullman
Several weeks ago, the Pentagon led an attempt to rename President Bush's global war on terror as the global struggle against violent extremism. Many commentators took this effort as a sign of a policy reassessment within the administration. But the name change was stillborn by the president himself, who in a subsequent speech pointedly referred to the global war on terror more than a dozen times. And despite other conflicting signals on Iraq policy coming from the administration, the president seems persuaded to "stay the course," at least for the time being.
The White House may truly believe we are winning this war. The White House is also driven by immediate events, principally the precarious situation in Iraq regarding security and reconstruction, the Aug. 15 deadline for drafting a constitution, a combination of a round-the-clock news cycle and the need for immediate responses to it and the obstacles in Washington to longer-term reflection. Hence, inhibitions to change are real. But such inhibitions conceal greater dangers.
Two revolutions are sweeping the Arab and Muslim worlds. Both are based on the profound conflict between conservative or extremists' aspirations and the pressures of modernity in accommodating to the way the world is now, not as it was decades or centuries ago. Conflict in both revolutions is political, social, economic, ideological and theological. The administration has so far failed to acknowledge either revolution.
The first conflict in the Arab world is over the apportionment of political power - who shall govern and who shall not. From Iran, with its theological revolution, to Saudi Arabia and Egypt and the successions there, and especially in Iraq (and the trajectory it is following to democratization), the clash between traditional autocracy and modern government and fuller representation may be as powerful as in France in 1789 and Europe in the 1840s. The understandable attention focused on the Aug. 15 deadline for completing Iraq's constitution helped to obscure these more powerful currents. At the same time, within Islam the clash is between conservatives and indeed radicals such as Sunni Wahhabis and Salafists, who would keep the clock permanently set in the past, and forward-thinking Muslims who desperately see the need for reformation and modernization.
At issue are many of the values that the West holds most dear: the rule of law; separation of church and state; the role of women; and the rejection of terror in advancing political agendas. Exploiting and firing these two revolutions are jihadist extremists such as al Qaeda, who are out to seize political power using terror and disruption as key tools and tactics.
On top of this highly complex and now life-and-death struggle, the United States often turns a blind eye to fundamental policy contradictions. If indeed we are waging a global war on terror, how do we win when there is no enemy army to beat? This is the heart of our strategic dilemma - how to defeat an extreme ideology by relying on traditional means largely dependent on military force.
A second contradiction is balancing support for Israel and Saudi Arabia with policies pursued by both that fuel the twin revolutions and are decidedly damaging to U.S. interests. Israel resembles a younger sibling to which the United States assumes a responsibility beyond any emotional attachment. Saudi Arabia has economic clout -- as well as the world's largest proven oil reserves. It has been an ally for decades in wars against the fascists, communists and a buffer against Iran. Yet both states use repressive tactics against dissidents and Saudi Arabia supports Wahhabi charities and groups linked with extremism. What happens when these realities can no longer be kept separate from the twin revolutions? Because it is unlikely that the Bush administration will embark on major course corrections in the global war on terror, at least until events demand change, what should be done to precipitate recognition and then response to both revolutions and contradictions?
The 2004 presidential campaign and countless hearings in Congress did not generate serious examination of these powerful and longer-term forces, their consequences and ways to resolve our policy dilemmas. Congress is on holiday until September, and unless there is an intervening crisis or catastrophe, there is no reason to think that interest will be any greater in taking a closer look.
The only answer is serious soul-searching in the White House. If indeed these revolutions are real, why are we not sensitive to them? And what happens when there are wars to be won but no armies to fight? Hoping these questions will be addressed is the thinnest of reeds on which to rest issues of such importance. Yet, for the moment, there is no other alternative. Mr. Bush - are you listening?
The White House may truly believe we are winning this war. The White House is also driven by immediate events, principally the precarious situation in Iraq regarding security and reconstruction, the Aug. 15 deadline for drafting a constitution, a combination of a round-the-clock news cycle and the need for immediate responses to it and the obstacles in Washington to longer-term reflection. Hence, inhibitions to change are real. But such inhibitions conceal greater dangers.
Two revolutions are sweeping the Arab and Muslim worlds. Both are based on the profound conflict between conservative or extremists' aspirations and the pressures of modernity in accommodating to the way the world is now, not as it was decades or centuries ago. Conflict in both revolutions is political, social, economic, ideological and theological. The administration has so far failed to acknowledge either revolution.
The first conflict in the Arab world is over the apportionment of political power - who shall govern and who shall not. From Iran, with its theological revolution, to Saudi Arabia and Egypt and the successions there, and especially in Iraq (and the trajectory it is following to democratization), the clash between traditional autocracy and modern government and fuller representation may be as powerful as in France in 1789 and Europe in the 1840s. The understandable attention focused on the Aug. 15 deadline for completing Iraq's constitution helped to obscure these more powerful currents. At the same time, within Islam the clash is between conservatives and indeed radicals such as Sunni Wahhabis and Salafists, who would keep the clock permanently set in the past, and forward-thinking Muslims who desperately see the need for reformation and modernization.
At issue are many of the values that the West holds most dear: the rule of law; separation of church and state; the role of women; and the rejection of terror in advancing political agendas. Exploiting and firing these two revolutions are jihadist extremists such as al Qaeda, who are out to seize political power using terror and disruption as key tools and tactics.
On top of this highly complex and now life-and-death struggle, the United States often turns a blind eye to fundamental policy contradictions. If indeed we are waging a global war on terror, how do we win when there is no enemy army to beat? This is the heart of our strategic dilemma - how to defeat an extreme ideology by relying on traditional means largely dependent on military force.
A second contradiction is balancing support for Israel and Saudi Arabia with policies pursued by both that fuel the twin revolutions and are decidedly damaging to U.S. interests. Israel resembles a younger sibling to which the United States assumes a responsibility beyond any emotional attachment. Saudi Arabia has economic clout -- as well as the world's largest proven oil reserves. It has been an ally for decades in wars against the fascists, communists and a buffer against Iran. Yet both states use repressive tactics against dissidents and Saudi Arabia supports Wahhabi charities and groups linked with extremism. What happens when these realities can no longer be kept separate from the twin revolutions? Because it is unlikely that the Bush administration will embark on major course corrections in the global war on terror, at least until events demand change, what should be done to precipitate recognition and then response to both revolutions and contradictions?
The 2004 presidential campaign and countless hearings in Congress did not generate serious examination of these powerful and longer-term forces, their consequences and ways to resolve our policy dilemmas. Congress is on holiday until September, and unless there is an intervening crisis or catastrophe, there is no reason to think that interest will be any greater in taking a closer look.
The only answer is serious soul-searching in the White House. If indeed these revolutions are real, why are we not sensitive to them? And what happens when there are wars to be won but no armies to fight? Hoping these questions will be addressed is the thinnest of reeds on which to rest issues of such importance. Yet, for the moment, there is no other alternative. Mr. Bush - are you listening?
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
Radiation Threat Identification System and Innovative American Technology Inc.
Innovative American Technology Inc. has developed Radiological Isotope Identification System. Radiation Threat Identification System identify trace levels of radiological materials.
Sensors of the Radiation Threat Identification System are rugged and can be deployed in aggressive environments. Allows for distributed sensor system and increased deployment areas in addition to the conventional radiation portal monitor positions. Sensors can be deployed in arrays for both covert and visible installations. This broad sensor deployment capability provides exposure time for detection and identification of dangerous materials. Additional sensors are planned for chemical, biological, and remote explosives detection.
Current systems only detect the presence of radiological materials and experience high false positive rates. Benign items that naturally emit radioactivity set off current systems causing impacts to the flow of goods and to port security. Accurate identification of goods and the ability to differentiate between normally occurring radiological materials and hazardous materials, Radiation Threat Identification System enables an efficient and effective means for the flow of goods and to port security.
Sensors of the Radiation Threat Identification System are rugged and can be deployed in aggressive environments. Allows for distributed sensor system and increased deployment areas in addition to the conventional radiation portal monitor positions. Sensors can be deployed in arrays for both covert and visible installations. This broad sensor deployment capability provides exposure time for detection and identification of dangerous materials. Additional sensors are planned for chemical, biological, and remote explosives detection.
Current systems only detect the presence of radiological materials and experience high false positive rates. Benign items that naturally emit radioactivity set off current systems causing impacts to the flow of goods and to port security. Accurate identification of goods and the ability to differentiate between normally occurring radiological materials and hazardous materials, Radiation Threat Identification System enables an efficient and effective means for the flow of goods and to port security.
Monday, August 15, 2005
Registered Traveler
Registered Traveler may be a way to speed passagengers that pose low security risks and may be a way to allow screeners to focus on passangengers that pose high security risks. Registered Traveler is a back door attempt by the Transportation Security Administration to implement the discredited Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System II. Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System II was discredited by the United States General Accounting Office.
Registered Traveler may be a way to speed passagengers and may be a way to speed terrorists and terrorist organizations in executing terrorist attacks.
Terrorists and terrorist organizations could probe Registered Traveler by having as many terrorists and members apply for Registered Traveler until a certain number is reached. Terrorists and terrorist organizations then could embark on terrorist attacks with out having to go through screening process and trained person in profiling and selecting passengers for scrutiny.
Security takes time and causes delays which is incompatible with maximizing short term airline profits. There is an inherent relationship between safety and speed. Rather than address vulnerabilities Transportation Security Administration and airlines prefer maximizing short term airline profits. The intelligence argues otherwise.
September 11, 2001 Attack Commission noted that 9 of the 19 hijackers were identified as safety risks by already existing security measures when they checked in for their flights. Luggage checked by those 9 men was inspected, but the hijackers boarded the flights because security was focused on bomb threats.
September 11, 2001 Attack hijackers succeeded because intelligence was not shared and inadequacies such as insecure cockpit doors were not addressed. Insecure cockpit doors are still not addressed.
Terrorists will not object to Registered Traveler. Registered Traveler should be aborted before attention is diverted from vulnerabilities still not addressed.
Registered Traveler may be a way to speed passagengers and may be a way to speed terrorists and terrorist organizations in executing terrorist attacks.
Terrorists and terrorist organizations could probe Registered Traveler by having as many terrorists and members apply for Registered Traveler until a certain number is reached. Terrorists and terrorist organizations then could embark on terrorist attacks with out having to go through screening process and trained person in profiling and selecting passengers for scrutiny.
Security takes time and causes delays which is incompatible with maximizing short term airline profits. There is an inherent relationship between safety and speed. Rather than address vulnerabilities Transportation Security Administration and airlines prefer maximizing short term airline profits. The intelligence argues otherwise.
September 11, 2001 Attack Commission noted that 9 of the 19 hijackers were identified as safety risks by already existing security measures when they checked in for their flights. Luggage checked by those 9 men was inspected, but the hijackers boarded the flights because security was focused on bomb threats.
September 11, 2001 Attack hijackers succeeded because intelligence was not shared and inadequacies such as insecure cockpit doors were not addressed. Insecure cockpit doors are still not addressed.
Terrorists will not object to Registered Traveler. Registered Traveler should be aborted before attention is diverted from vulnerabilities still not addressed.
United States Electronic Passport
United States Department of State will test United States Electronic Passport late 2005. United States Electronic Passport will become standard issue early 2006 and should take up to a year to be issued.
United States Electronic Passport will look like United States Passport in size and shape, will be thicker. Photo of owner will be included. United States Electronic Passport will have a layer of metallic anti-skimming material to limit retrieval of information to within an inch of the United States Electronic Passport.
United States Electronic Passport is expected to cost $97.
This is what will happen with use of United States Electronic Passport. United States Electronic Passport is swiped. This provides a key that is unique to each United States Electronic Passport and lets the process start. United States Electronic Passport is held over a reader. A radio field from a reader turns on the United States Electronic Passport. Data is transferred to the reader. Allowing for visual check to start. United States Electronic Passport and owner of United States Electronic Passport inspected. United States Electronic Passport is also confirmed as having been issued by a legitimate authority and having not been altered.
United States Electronic Passport lacks privacy and wireless transmission compromises security.
United States Electronic Passport will look like United States Passport in size and shape, will be thicker. Photo of owner will be included. United States Electronic Passport will have a layer of metallic anti-skimming material to limit retrieval of information to within an inch of the United States Electronic Passport.
United States Electronic Passport is expected to cost $97.
This is what will happen with use of United States Electronic Passport. United States Electronic Passport is swiped. This provides a key that is unique to each United States Electronic Passport and lets the process start. United States Electronic Passport is held over a reader. A radio field from a reader turns on the United States Electronic Passport. Data is transferred to the reader. Allowing for visual check to start. United States Electronic Passport and owner of United States Electronic Passport inspected. United States Electronic Passport is also confirmed as having been issued by a legitimate authority and having not been altered.
United States Electronic Passport lacks privacy and wireless transmission compromises security.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)