The UK Elections: A Very British Fraud

from : http://www.globalresearch.ca

by Cailean Bochanan
Global Research, May 11, 2010
In These New Times - 2010-05-09
Email this article to a friend Print this article
0diggsdigg
Strong evidence of electoral fraud in recent UK elections has been reported in several outlets. This would not be the first time considering political fraud is embedded in the system. Like electronic voting machines which enable leaders in the United States to steal elections at will, the UK’s way of procuring false votes is to invent false voters, or "ghosts", all the more since no "ghostbusting" mechanisms are available. Thursday’s election has been described as a shambles, a complete farce which shames the nation, after scenes of thousands being turned away from polling stations without being able to vote. Is this just another instance of chaotic Britain muddling along, like Dad’s Army, or is there a more sinister element of systemic fraud? That malpractice had been at play in previous elections, in 2005, the Scottish elections of 2007 and the infamous Glasgow North East by-election last year, was more than evident. My view was that it could become the central focus of this election rather than the pseudo-conflict between three City-backed politicos. This view seemed to be confirmed when high-profile candidate George Galloway MP of the leftist Respect party made thefollowing sensational revelations: “Respect has a substantial dossier on the current abuse and the principal people involved in this attempted fraud. George Galloway will name these people and the Respect bus will drive to their addresses where reporters and photographers will have the opportunity to question the people Galloway has named.” We had also had the comments of Martin Bell, the conscience of Britain, the White Knight who had vanquished the corrupt Tory, Neil Hamilton: “There is actually a possibility that the result of the election could be decided by electoral fraud. That’s pretty grim.” With these two leading the charge there was a real possibility that light would be cast on the dark recesses of British political life. But this is Britain. On the morning of the 7th Galloway made this remarkable statement to the press: “What we’ve done in these three cases is to point out the huge increase in numbers of people suddenly registering at their addresses in the space of a few days. We’ve never said it is voter fraud.” Had someone” had a word” with George or was he just the conductor whereby the lightning of this issue was safely lead to earth? The rest is silence, a silence unlikely to be broken by a report from electoral observers from Europe andcommonwealth countries to come out in two months time. And so the election remains just a shambles, nothing more. There is, of course, to be a thorough investigation to make sure nothing of the like occurs ever again. The absence of fraud leaves us with a very unconvincing narrative for the course of this election. What was the nth rerun of the old firm five yearly fixture had been dramatically enlivened by the performance of Nick Clegg , leader of the Liberal-Democrat party, in the TV debates. As a result there was a surge of enthusiasm for Clegg, suddenly a contender, reflected in a huge increase in registrations to vote. But these votes didn’t go to Clegg. The last pre-election poll showed him kneck and kneck with New Labour with both trailing the Tories. The “strange" exit polls (as noted by Vince Cable), however, suddenly revealed a drop in the Lib Dem vote, which was confirmed in the actual results, as reported. So Clegg’s TV successes only inspired people to register and vote for his opponents. Either the British people are perverse or this electoral process was. The growing corruption of the British electoral process is well documented and doesn’t require anything additional from conspiracy theorists such as myself. Listen to Richard Mawley QC, the judge presiding over a case of vote-rigging in Birmingham in June 2004: “The system is wide open to fraud and any would-be political fraudster knows that”. Citing evidence of “massive, systematic and organised fraud”, Judge Mawley said the system was “hopelessly insecure” and sent a message to those that claimed that the current postal voting system was working, adding: “Anybody who has sat through the case I have just tried and listened to evidence of electoral fraud that would disgrace a banana republic would find this statement surprising.” “The best and simplest way to procure false votes is to invent false voters – “ghosts”, as they are known in the trade” reports Nick Davies in a highly recommended 2001 Guardian article which exposed the various modalities of UK electoral fraud. He elaborates: “The real joy of raising electoral ghosts is that there are no ghostbusters: there is no system for checking the accuracy of the electoral register. Riggers can find a derelict building, or add a couple of extra houses to a street, or use the address of a hostel or anywhere else with a transitory population, and simply bung in names. If they are unlucky or particularly clumsy, and happen to catch the eye of an electoral registration officer, the police may be called. But, under normal circumstances, the paperwork is routinely processed straight on to the register with no attempt at checking.” He goes on to discuss widespread techniques such as the “Tipp-Ex trick” and “granny farming”. But this was 2001: he is describing the process in its infancy, as it were, before New Labour really systematised fraud by introducing postal votes for all, proxy votes for all and making it easier to add names to the electoral register. I don’t intend to give a comprehensive treatise on our fraudulent practices: I limit myself to providing these highlighted links for those of you who wish to do some further study. And very interesting it is too. Electoral fraud in the UK is an open secret, the elephant in the room(another one!) but nothing ever happens about it. We have “independent “ bodies like the shadowy “Electoral Commission” making recommendation which are ignored. In fact, there are bodies everywhere and skeletons falling out of cupboards but we Brits are just too polite to notice. The police are forever following up allegations; there have been fifty in the last week. But nothing happens. Trying to divert criticism from itself, Jenny Watson of the Electoral Commission blamed Britain’s “Victorian” electoral system. I’ve never heard it called that before; in any case, it’s much more like the notorious 18th century system of rotten burghs. We also hear comparisons with “third-world countries”. But corruption or alleged corruption in countries like Zimbabwe results in a chorus of indignation and calls for regime change. No one is doing that here for the simple reason that the people calling for regime change in Zimbabwe are the regime in Britain, and they don’t want to overthrow themselves. Should we, the people, want to overthrow them? On the basis of the scenario I have outlined above there is a strong prima facie case for an orange revolution in Britain. I’m not referring here to another 1688, a coup d’etat by Anglo-Dutch finance backed by loyalist mobs. Instead, Lib Dem voters should be out in the main squares demanding a full criminal investigation into the events of last week: they should pick up where George Galloway left off. What use will PR be to them if the votes continue to be rigged? What is the use of all the votes in the world if we don’t have the rule of law? The wider world also has to learn the truth about British democracy, a system whereby political fraud, as easy as throwing a frame of snooker, is enthroned next to financial fraud, and we are all the losers. They will then equip themselves all the better to resist the interfering, the warmongering and the malicious busybodying of a country which has yet to learn that the empire is over. Cailean Bochanan is editorial columnist for UK-based In These New Times.
Cailean Bochanan is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Cailean Bochanan

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website.

.

Bombshell: Goldman Sachs Helped Greece Cover Up Its Huge Debt

from : http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com

NYT is out with a major story by Louise Story, Landon Thomas and Nelson D. Schwartz on how Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and other investment banks have helped Greece hide the extent of its debt:

As worries over Greece rattle world markets, records and interviews show that with Wall Street’s help, the nation engaged in a decade-long effort to skirt European debt limits. One deal created by Goldman Sachs helped obscure billions in debt from the budget overseers in Brussels.

Even as the crisis was nearing the flashpoint, banks were searching for ways to help Greece forestall the day of reckoning. In early November — three months before Athens became the epicenter of global financial anxiety — a team from Goldman Sachs arrived in the ancient city with a very modern proposition for a government struggling to pay its bills, according to two people who were briefed on the meeting.

The bankers, led by Goldman’s president, Gary D. Cohn, held out a financing instrument that would have pushed debt from Greece’s health care system far into the future, much as when strapped homeowners take out second mortgages to pay off their credit cards.

It had worked before. In 2001, just after Greece was admitted to Europe’s monetary union, Goldman helped the government quietly borrow billions, people familiar with the transaction said. That deal, hidden from public view because it was treated as a currency trade rather than a loan, helped Athens to meet Europe’s deficit rules while continuing to spend beyond its means.

Athens did not pursue the latest Goldman proposal, but with Greece groaning under the weight of its debts and with its richer neighbors vowing to come to its aid, the deals over the last decade are raising questions about Wall Street’s role in the world’s latest financial drama.

As in the American subprime crisis and the implosion of the American International Group, financial derivatives played a role in the run-up of Greek debt. Instruments developed by Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and a wide range of other banks enabled politicians to mask additional borrowing in Greece, Italy and possibly elsewhere.

In dozens of deals across the Continent, banks provided cash upfront in return for government payments in the future, with those liabilities then left off the books. Greece, for example, traded away the rights to airport fees and lottery proceeds in years to come.

Critics say that such deals, because they are not recorded as loans, mislead investors and regulators about the depth of a country’s liabilities.

Some of the Greek deals were named after figures in Greek mythology. One of them, for instance, was called Aeolos, after the god of the winds.

Most alarming is the hint that this goes beyond Greece:

Such derivatives, which are not openly documented or disclosed, add to the uncertainty over how deep the troubles go in Greece and which other governments might have used similar off-balance sheet accounting.

Bottom line: It appears that Goldman Sachs has turned many governments throughout the world into Super-Enrons, with off-balance sheet shenanigans, financial sleight of hand and convoluted accounting. Governments generally don't need help in this kind of maneuvering, but Goldman with its collection of whiz kid derivative designers has taken the entire process to a new level. A new level so unique that it could very will collapse the financial structure of the manipulated world. Posted by Robert Wenzel at 1:17 PM



The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website.

.

Opinion: Is the attack on Berlusconi the payoff for unliked politicians or an orchestrated attack to show him as victim while his unpopularity grows ?

from : www.thelogicoftruth.blogspot.com





S. Berlusconi might has learned an important lesson from the false flag attacks on the twin towers .

My Guess is :

Just show to the people your country that you or your country is/are a victim/s of an attack and your popularity will grow again and you will be able to suggest to your nation more tougher laws and restriccions !

this Guy named "Massimo Tartaglia" ,age 42 ,who has a supposed record of mental instability ,wich could suggest to the world ,that it wasn't an attack wich was fueled or based on the lately anti Berlusconi rallies
( the latest was called "No B. Day" ) .

remember that : Berlusconi owns or controls the majority of the Italian News Network !

Just like the zionists in the US who control 96% of the msm worldwide and are suspected to have taken parts on the 9/11 attacks .

lets see where this story leads to !

I'll be watching the aftermaths of this attack on Berlusconi closely .

New :

http://www.corriere.it/politica/09_dicembre_13/berlusconi-colpito-al-viso-da-manifestante_0cd154c4-e80e-11de-8657-00144f02aabc.shtml

there you go :

watch this video closely and you'll see that the statue couldn't hit B. on the Nose .

LOT thinks that the whole thing is an italian little 9/11 .

watch it and stop the video close to where the statue hits the latrin lover !

there is no way of how the object could have hurt the nose ( supposedly broken ) .

also notice :

he allready had a hankerchief ready in his hand to cover his mouth and nose !

No Blood on his Shirt and Suit either !

Surely he will get an Oscar from Hollywood for this acting performance !

wiki : Berlusconi :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvio_Berlusconi

.

Ukraine first and Austria second for martial law based on flu scare?

from : signs of the times (int.)

The Flu Case
Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:35 EST

© Unknown
Ukrainian PM Yulia Tymoshenko leads the way

On a cold, overcast December afternoon in 2004, I briefly met with Viktor Yuschenko, the Ukrainian President.

He had been treated for poisoning at a hospital in Döbling and when he was released, he held a press conference surrounded by doctors and attended by scores of journalists.

Yuschenko stood there barely saying a word, looking haggard and with a bluish pallor: his face was pock marked and his hair was an unnatural colour; his eyes were full of mistrust and fear even though the private Rudolfinerhaus clinic held few threats.

Five years on, this shattered looking individual, who was once the head of a pro democracy movement, is about to proclaim himself a dictator.

Ukraine is the first country to come under the control of the WHO and the UN under the International Health Regulations 2005, and the reality is that Yuschenko and his Prime Minister Julia Timoschenko are just carrying out the orders from WHO and the UN when they suspend civic rights and democracy under the pretext of fighting a pandemic emergency.

Whatever is left of freedom in the Ukraine is about to be extinguished.

Elections in January are set to be suspended.

Demonstrations have been banned.

Political opponents have been prohibited from travelling inside areas put under quarantine.

Borders have been partly closed already.

Critics of a mass vaccination campaign are facing criminal prosecution and jail.

Huge swathes of land have been put under quarantine.

Plans are in the works for the forced vaccination of people with a toxic and untested swine flu vaccine. The US government is planning to send nearly a million doses of the jab, a substance classified as a bioweapon, to the Ukraine by early December.

Pregnant women and children are the first to be given the jab which Yuschenko using the twisted logic and lies worthy of the Nazi Propagandist Josef Goebbels has said must be administered to them to "protect their health".

Tents belonging to Eurolab have sprung up in Kiev offering treatment against the flu.

Eurolab appears to be the diagnostic department of the German scandal-hit coporate giant Siemens in yet another private government partnership.

Yuschenko has justified implementing martial law on behalf of WHO by the sudden appearance of a pneumonic plague in the western part of the Ukraine that appears to be artificially engineered.

There have been reports of planes spraying towns before the appearance of the plague. WHO was part of an exercise on plague bioterrorism just a month before the actual plague appeared. Baxter has a facility in the Ukraine.

WHO and the international corporate crime syndicate that fund them, may have decided that they could not go ahead with their plan to trigger a pandemic in Europe and the USA because the public awareness of the dangers of the vaccine jab has become too great, not least as a result of WHO and Baxter being caught contaminating 72 kilos of vaccine material with the live bird flu virus in February.

Miniscule numbers of people have gone to take the swine flu vaccine across Europe. In Sweden the numbers might also be as low as a few thousand because the government only counts how many doses of the swine flu have been distributed (1.4 million) and not how many jabs have actually been given.

The Ukraine may, therefore, have seemed like a better place to test their model and carry out their plan of generating a plague, panic, confusion, declaring a mutated virus, inserting the virus into vaccines, and waging biological warfare against defenceless civilian population eventually using Ukraine's own army and military through a forced vaccination programme.

Expect WHO, which is examining the Ukrainian mystery virus, to announce the swine flu has morphed into the bird flu to spread panic. This will be an excuse for WHO to insert the live bird flu virus into vaccines, and so spread the pandemic even further.

WHO has been preparing for years for a bird flu pandemic, after all. The bird flu is an artificial lab virus reconstructed from the Spanish Flu pandemic virus by US scientists in a bioweapons lab.

The Austrian corporate media - controlled by the same corporate crime syndicate that pull the strings of WHO - are preparing the people here for the idea that the pandemic could soon spread. Five flights a day land from Kiev and there are no precautions to test infected people in place, pipes an Austrian newspaper.

How long until the Austrian newspapers declare the plague or bird flu has reached Austria? How long until we see the attempt by the government at the brutal implementation of martial law preceding forced vaccinations and quarantines?

The number of police and private security forces patrolling on the streets in Austria has certainly increased dramatically recently. There are even uniformed, private security guards now patrolling Vienna University's libraries, something totally new. Extra police have been put in the airports and border crossings. The army command structure has been centralized.

Special army units based in Korneuburg, the same place where Baxter has its facilities, have bene practicing pandemic emergency exercises and quarantining patients in hospitals.

The Austrian government is facing protests from students and an ecomonic collapse engineered by the corporate crime syndicate that funds big pharma and WHO. The government has saddled the Austrians with huge debts to the banks that will suck out of the economy huge amounts of money leaving even less for students, pensioners as a depression comparable with the 30s approaches.

The evidence of crimes committed by members of the government is so great that if the Justice Minister Claudia Bandion Ortner were not herself so corrupt, then most of the parliament would be in jail.

How long until the Austrian government, corrupted to the core, threatens people with martial law under the pretext of a pandemic to avoid having to face accountability for their crimes?

How long until WHO and UN officials following the orders of the banksters and pharma companies take over the health service and the police and mandate forced vaccinations and quarantines in Austria?

With a bridgehead in western Europe for their pandemic plans, WHO could then attempt the same tricks in other countries as in Austria.

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website.

.

Bush and Blair accused of War Crimes:

from : globalresearch ( Int.)

Regardless of size or power, no country or national leader is exempt from international humanitarian law.

ON Saturday Oct 31, the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal (KLWCT) heard the opening arguments from the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission (KLWCC) about war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Commission submitted on many grave issues of international law of war and of humanitarian law, arising out of the invasion of Afgha nistan in 2001 and the conquest of Iraq in 2003 by the United States and its allies.

There are well documented allegations that the invading armies used banned weapons of mass destruction, bombed civilian areas and committed mass murders. There were kidnappings, torture, racial and religious profiling and many other acts of savagery and lawlessness that satisfy the legal definitions of war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.

Furthermore, in a show of invincibility and impunity, then US President George W. Bush, by a White House Memorandum of Feb 7, 2002 exempted his nation from the binding provisions of the much-venerated Geneva Conventions, excluding (suspected) al-Qaeda and Taliban detainees from the Conventions’ protection.

The carnage in Afghanistan and Iraq continues but the Western world largely remains silent. Inter national institutions like the UN Security Council, the World Court and the International Criminal Court (ICC) look the other way.

It is in this context that in 2005, the KL-based Perdana Global Peace Forum hosted a number of international consultations bringing together legal luminaries from around the world. This resulted in the launching of the Kuala Lumpur Declaration to Criminalise War.

A War Crimes Commission was appointed to investigate allegations of brutality and to gather evidence. A War Crimes Court was set up.

The Commission took two-and-a-half years to trace and interview victims, gather evidence and research the law. Last Saturday, when the Commission submitted its case to the seven-judge Tribunal, two preliminary issues came up for adjudication.

First, does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear the cases? Second, can a head of state or government unilaterally exempt itself from any international treaty or convention (such as the Geneva Conventions) duly ratified by the state without first abrogating the relevant treaty or convention?

On both issues the Tribunal gave unanimous opinions. The Tribunal held that it has jurisdiction to adjudicate on war crimes in Iraq because of the Charter of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal. Its proceedings were also inspired by previous precedents of People’s Tribunals, e.g. the Sir Bertrand Russell Tribunal in relation to US War Crimes in Vietnam, the Tokyo Tribunal on Afghanistan and the Turkish Tribunal in relation to Iraq.

The KL proceedings are inspired by the noble principle that wherever there is a right there must be a remedy. The families of the 650,000 innocents slaughtered in Iraq in the last five years, the thousands more who had been tortured and the millions more who have been displaced have no remedy in national or international courts.

Their country is still under brutal occupation and it is inconceivable that any Iraqi court will prosecute members of the occupation force for war crimes. US courts have no jurisdiction in Iraq and some US judges have even feigned helplessness in relation to torture and unlawful detentions in US-controlled concentration camps in Guantanamo Bay.

The ICC has been approached with 240 complaints. Its chief prosecutor, a European, has most amazingly ruled that the complaints do not have “sufficient gravity” to merit prosecution!

The Rome Statute that created the ICC has a number of flaws that prevent the horrendous war crimes, the genocide, the crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression from being prosecuted.

First, the United States did not ratify the Rome Statute. As such, US politicians and generals are largely exempt from the jurisdiction of the ICC.

British and Australian citizens belong to a ratifying state, and as such are subject to the ICC’s jurisdiction but are being shielded by the ICC prosecutor because in his opinion their crimes of complicity lack sufficient gravity!

Second, for a crime to be prosecuted before the ICC, it must be committed on the territories of a member state of the ICC. Iraq and Afghanistan are not parties to the ICC Treaty and the bestialities committed there are, therefore, exempt from the ICC’s jurisdiction.

Third, the UN Security Council has the power to refer a non-signatory to the ICC (as it did for Darfur). But due to its geopolitical, racial and religious bias, the UNSC will not refer US, British, Polish, Italian or Australian citizens to the ICC.

Fourth, the ICC can investigate a case only if national courts fail or are unable to investigate a case. In the United States and Britain, only low-level soldiers have been prosecuted. The fact that the orders came right from the top is being ignored by the international legal system.

The Tribunal was also unanimous in holding that over the last 50 years, international humanitarian law has developed to the point that no head of state or nation can unilaterally renounce it.

If there is a treaty, it is binding. Even if a nation is not a signatory to a treaty or claims to revoke it, it is still bound by a higher customary international law that is universal and that cannot be disowned.

National sovereignty is no more the absolutist concept it was in the Middle Ages. Today, sovereignty is a shield against foreign aggression.

It cannot be used as a sword against one’s own people or the people of other nations. No nation can legislate to legalise wars, conquer territories, enslave populations or commit genocide, torture or crimes against humanity.

In the case of former president Bush there was an additional factor: in the United States, treaties are part of the law of the land.

The US president has no authority to abrogate the law of his country. Therefore, Bush’s memorandum exempting the United States from the binding rules of the Geneva Convention had no force in law.

The Tribunal held that in relation to crimes against humanitarian law, the status of a head of state does not constitute a defence. Nor is it a defence to submit that one was acting under the orders of a superior; this is the law since the Nuremberg Trials.

The lifting of immunity and the principle of individual criminal respon sibility are now embodied in a plethora of international laws and decisions. These include the UN General Assembly Resolution 95(1) of Dec 11, 1946; Article 13 of the Draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind (1991); UN Document No. S/25704 (1993); and Article 27 of the Rome Statute. The Tribunal has just begun its work. The road ahead is long and painful.

What is important is that there is a Malaysian initiative to remind the world that some rules of civilised behaviour bind all nations of the world, big and small. No nation of the world, no matter how powerful, can exempt its officials from the long arm of international humanitarian law.

Global Research Articles by Shad Saleem Faruqi

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website.

.

Namibia: Uranium Takes Erkki to Finland

from : http://allafrica.com

Jo-MarÉ Duddy

21 October 2009

---

• Email|
• Print|
• Comment

Share:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

NAMIBIA'S uranium riches have attracted the attention of yet another major nuclear power player: Finland.

Mines and Energy Minister Erkki Nghimtina arrives in Finland today, where he will not only meet with Economic Affairs Minister Mauri Pekkarinen and Foreign Trade and Development Minister Paavo Väyrynen, but will also visit the Teollisuuden Voima Oyj's Olkiluoto nuclear power plant.

Finland has four nuclear reactors in two power plants. A fifth will be completed in 2012.

Namibia overtook Russia as the world's fourth biggest uranium supplier last year, with ten per cent of the global uranium market share.

So far this year, Namibia has already signed an agreement on cooperation in peaceful uses of nuclear energy with India, paving the way to sell uranium oxide to the country.

The agreement also allows for India to train personnel and set up nuclear power plants in Namibia, who intends generating its own nuclear power by 2018.

Uranium also featured high on the agenda with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and entourage of 300, including Russian Energy Minister Sergei Shmatko and Sergei Kiriyenko, chief of Russia's nuclear energy authority Rosatom, visited Namibia in June this year.

The Foreign Affairs Ministry of Finland yesterday issued a statement saying Nghimtina will visit the country until Friday.

"Finland and Namibia will enhance their co-operation in the mining and energy sector," it said, adding that "the development of the mining sector in Namibia requires major energy investments."

During this time, "Nghimtina will get acquainted with Finnish technology within the fields of energy efficiency, renewable sources of energy and mining technology and meet executives of Finnish companies representing these sectors."

He will also visit the VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland and the Geological Survey of Finland, where he will be introduced to the activities of the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority Finland.

Relevant Links

• Southern Africa
• Namibia
• Energy
• Business

The programme also includes a visit in the Rauma region, where Minister Nghimtina will get acquainted with the activities of the Chamber of Commerce of Rauma and its member companies and visit Teollisuuden Voima Oyj's Olkiluoto nuclear power plant, the Finnish Ministry said.

Olkiluoto, where Areva is currently building the world's largest prototype nuclear reactor, was supposed to be Finland's prime example of new generation nuclear power, driving the so-called Nuclear Renaissance in the country.

However, it is at least three and a half years late and billions over budget. The project has also been plagued with accusations of safety violations, the website olkiluoto.info reports.

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website.

.

Italian lawyers seek detention of CIA operatives

from : signs of the times (int.)

Italian lawyers seek detention of CIA operatives

Press TV
Fri, 02 Oct 2009 16:30 EDT

Italian prosecutors have pressed on with a bid to arrest 26 US Central Intelligence Agency officers over their 'grave crime' of abducting a 'terror suspect' in 2003.

Public prosecutors in Italy have called upon a Milan court to issue the arrest warrant for the CIA agents who participated in a 2003 kidnapping operation, as part of US 'renditions' of terrorism suspect authorized by former US administration, which led to the detention and 'harsh' interrogation of the Egyptian Muslim cleric Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr, aka Abu Omar.

The Italian lawyers have also urged the court to convict the CIA agents involved in the so-called US war on terror and put them behind bars for at least 10 to 13 years for their offense.

Moreover, they have requested the court to mete out similar imprisonment term for Italy's former head of secret service, Nicolo Pollari.

Under renditions program, the US spy agency relocated suspects to a third country where torture was exercised as an attempt to outsource the afflicting practice, human rights activists say.

Armando Spataro, a leading prosecutor on the case has also accused Italian governments of failing to formally request the extradition of the US spies and said that the presence of the American 'fugitives' was necessary in order to provide more testimonies for CIA's international undercover activities.

The US government has refrained to extradite the accused 'criminals' to Italy in order for them to give evidence on Abu Omar case.

Meanwhile, CIA has so far abstained to comment on the latest tribunal against its agents.

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website.

.

New Czech move to block EU treaty

from : signs of the times (int.)

BBC News
Tue, 29 Sep 2009 00:57 EDT

© Agence France- Presse

Chairman of the Czech Constitutional Court Pavel Rychetsky. The constitutional court chairman will look at Lisbon again

Czech senators opposed to the EU's Lisbon Treaty have filed a new complaint against it with the country's constitutional court.

The complaint could create a new delay to treaty ratification, even if Irish voters back the treaty in a referendum on Friday.

Czech President Vaclav Klaus, a Eurosceptic, says he will not sign the treaty until the court decides.

The treaty cannot take effect unless all 27 EU member states back it.

The Czech court has rejected previous complaints about the treaty, which is aimed at streamlining EU institutions to improve decision-making in the enlarged bloc.

But it could take the court as long as six months to deliver its verdict on the new complaint, the BBC's Rob Cameron reports from Prague.

Sovereignty battle

Seventeen Eurosceptic senators signed the latest petition, despite the fact that the Czech parliament has approved the treaty.

The senator who lodged the new complaint, Jiri Oberfalzer, told the BBC it centred on persisting concerns that Lisbon infringed upon Czech sovereignty.

He and his colleagues want the court to decide whether the treaty forms the legal foundations for the creation of a European superstate. If it does, they say, then it clearly violates the Czech constitution.

A further threat to Lisbon would emerge if it is not ratified in time for the UK general election, expected next April or May, which the British Conservatives are favourites to win. They have pledged to put Lisbon to a UK referendum if it is not yet in force.

The treaty's opponents say it undermines national sovereignty and concentrates too much power in Brussels. They also argue that it is simply the EU's defunct constitution repackaged.

The Republic of Ireland will hold a second referendum on Lisbon on 2 October.

Irish voters rejected the treaty last year, but EU governments, anxious to bring the treaty into force, then gave Ireland legally binding "guarantees" that Lisbon would not affect key aspects of Irish sovereignty. These Irish guarantees have not yet been attached to the treaty.

Opinion polls suggest that this time round the Irish "Yes" camp will win, despite widespread criticism of the Dublin government over its handling of the economic crisis.

Ireland is the only EU member state to hold a referendum on the treaty, though there have been calls for referendums in several other countries.

Under Irish law, any major amendment to an EU treaty entails an amendment to the Irish constitution - and that requires a referendum.

Elsewhere in the EU, governments argue that Lisbon amends earlier EU treaties and does not need to be put to a referendum.

The treaty would bring in some major changes. It would expand the policy areas subject to qualified majority voting (QMV), rather than unanimity. It would also establish a new post of president of the European Council - the grouping of EU states' leaders - and a high representative for foreign affairs.

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website.

.