Japanese mafia boss conspired to traffic nuclear materials, says US
By Bernd Debusmann Jr, BBC News, Washington, 22 Feb 24
US prosecutors have charged an alleged member of the Japanese mafia with conspiring to traffic nuclear materials.
Takeshi Ebisawa, 60, tried to sell uranium and plutonium that he believed would be transferred to Iran to build a nuclear bomb, it is alleged.
Mr Ebisawa and a Thai co-defendant were previously hit with weapons and drug charges in April 2022.
He faces life imprisonment if convicted of the latest charges.
US authorities say Mr Ebisawa – who is being held in a Brooklyn jail – is a senior figure in the Japanese organised crime syndicate, known as the Yakuza, with operations in Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Thailand and the US.
The US Department of Justice said Mr Ebisawa and his “confederates showed samples of nuclear materials in Thailand” to an undercover agent from the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA)……………………………………………………………………………
Mr Ebisawa faces charges including conspiracy to commit international trafficking of nuclear materials, narcotics importation conspiracy, conspiracy to acquire, transfer and possess anti-aircraft missiles and money laundering.
His co-conspirator in the case – 61-year-old Thai national Somphop Singhasiri – is facing drugs and weapons charges.
Both are facing life in prison if convicted.
The pair will be arraigned in a New York federal courtroom on Thursday.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68365597
Julian Assange judge previously acted for MI6
The judge set to rule on the Assange extradition case was previously paid to represent the interests of MI6 and the Ministry of Defence – whose activities WikiLeaks has exposed.
MARK CURTIS AND JOHN MCEVOY, 19 FEBRUARY 2024
One of the two High Court judges who will rule on Julian Assange’s bid to stop his extradition to the US represented the UK’s Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) and the Ministry of Defence, Declassified has found.
Justice Jeremy Johnson has also been a specially vetted barrister, cleared by the UK authorities to access top secret information.
Johnson will sit with Dame Victoria Sharp, his senior judge, to decide the fate of the WikiLeaks co-founder. If extradited, Assange faces a maximum sentence of 175 years.
His persecution by the US authorities has been at the behest of Washington’s intelligence and security services, with whom the UK has deep relations.
His persecution by the US authorities has been at the behest of Washington’s intelligence and security services, with whom the UK has deep relations.
Assange’s journalistic career has been marked by exposing the dirty secrets of the US and UK national security establishments. He now faces a judge who has acted for, and received security clearance from, some of those same state agencies.
As with previous judges who have ruled on Assange’s case, this raises concerns about institutional conflicts of interest.
Exactly how much Johnson has been paid for his work for government departments is not clear. Records show he was paid twice by the Government Legal Department for his services in 2018. The sum was over £55,000.
Briefed by MI6
Justice Johnson became a deputy High Court judge in 2016 and a full judge in 2019. His biography states he has been “often acting in cases involving the police and government departments”.
As a barrister, in 2007 he represented MI6 as an observer during the inquests into the deaths of Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed.
Johnson worked alongside Robin Tam QC, previously described by legal directories as a barrister who “does an enormous amount of often sensitive work” for the UK government…………………………………………………….
Defending the ministry
Johnson has also represented the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) on at least two occasions.
In 2013, he acted for the department during the high-profile Al-Sweady inquiry, which looked into allegations that “British soldiers torture and unlawfully killed Iraqi prisoners” in 2004.
The MoD’s lawyers said the Iraqi allegations were a “product of lies” and that those making the claims “were guilty of a criminal conspiracy”.
Johnson argued there was “compelling and extensive and independent forensic evidence” to refute the case. The five-year inquiry, which cost around £25m, exonerated the British troops.
Johnson also acted for the MoD in 2011, in an appeal case against Shaun Wood, a Royal Air Force (RAF) serviceman. ………………………….
‘Highest security clearance’
Johnson was appointed by the Attorney General to be a “special advocate” in around 2007, Declassified understands. These are specially vetted barristers who act for the purpose of hearing secret evidence in a closed court.
Special advocates “must undergo and obtain Developed Vetting (the highest level of HM Government security clearance) prior to their appointment”, government guidance states.
Developed Vetting is required for individuals having “frequent and uncontrolled access to TOP SECRET assets or require any access to TOP SECRET codeword material”. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. https://www.declassifieduk.org/julian-assange-judge-previously-acted-for-mi6/
After years of avoiding extradition, Julian Assange’s appeal is likely his last chance. Here’s how it might unfold (and how we got here)
On February 20 and 21, Julian Assange will ask the High Court of England and Wales to reverse a decision from June last year allowing the United Kingdom to extradite him to the United States.
There he faces multiple counts of computer misuse and espionage stemming from his work with WikiLeaks, publishing sensitive US government documents provided by Chelsea Manning. The US government has repeatedly claimed that Assange’s actions risked its national security.
This is the final avenue of appeal in the UK, although Stella Assange, Julian’s wife, has indicated he would seek an order from the European Court of Human Rights if he loses the application for appeal. The European Court, an international court that hears cases under the European Convention on Human Rights, can issue orders that are binding on convention member states. In 2022, an order from the court stopped the UK sending asylum seekers to Rwanda pending a full review of the relevant legislation.
The extradition process has been running for nearly five years. Over such a long time, it’s easy to lose track of the sequence of events that led to this. Here’s how we got here, and what might happen next.
Years-long extradition attempt
From 2012 until May 2019, Assange resided in the Ecuadorian embassy in London after breaching bail on unrelated charges. While he remained in the embassy, the police could not arrest him without the permission of the Ecuadorian government.
In 2019, Ecuador allowed Assange’s arrest. He was then convicted of breaching bail conditions, and imprisoned in Belmarsh Prison, where he’s remained during the extradition proceedings. Shortly after his arrest, the United States laid charges against Assange and requested his extradition from the United Kingdom.
Assange immediately challenged the extradition request. After delays due to COVID, in January 2021, the District Court decided the extradition could not proceed because it would be “oppressive” to Assange.
The ruling was based on the likely conditions that Assange would face in an American prison and the high risk that he would attempt suicide. The court rejected all other arguments against extradition.
The American government appealed the District Court decision. It provided assurances on prison conditions for Assange to overcome the finding that the extradition would be oppressive. Those assurances led to the High Court overturning the order stopping extradition. Then the Supreme Court (the UK’s top court) refused Assange’s request to appeal that ruling.
The extradition request then passed to the home secretary, who approved it. Assange appealed the home secretary’s decision, which a single judge of the High Court rejected in June 2023.
This appeal is against that most recent ruling and will be heard by a two-judge bench. These judges will only decide whether Assange has grounds for appeal. If they decide in his favour, the court will schedule a full hearing of the merits of the appeal. That hearing would come at the cost of further delay in the resolution of his case.
Growing political support
Parallel to the legal challenges, Assange’s supporters have led a political campaign to stop the prosecution and the extradition. One goal of the campaign has been to persuade the Australian government to argue Assange’s case with the American government.
Cross-party support from individual parliamentarians has steadily grown, led by independent MP Andrew Wilkie. Over the past two years, the government, including the foreign minister and the prime minister, have made stronger and clearer statements that the prosecution should end.
On February 14, Wilkie proposed a motion in support of Assange, seconded by Labor MP Josh Wilson. The house was asked to “underline the importance of the UK and USA bringing the matter to a close so that Mr Assange can return home to his family in Australia.” It was passed.
In addition, Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus confirmed he had recently raised the Assange prosecution with his American counterpart, who has the authority to end it.
What will Assange’s team argue?
For the High Court appeal, it is expected Assange’s legal team will once again argue the extradition would be oppressive and that the American assurances are inadequate. A recent statement by Alice Edwards, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, supports their argument that extradition could lead to treatment “amounting to torture or other forms of ill-treatment or punishment”. She rejected the adequacy of American assurances, saying:
They are not legally binding, are limited in their scope, and the person the assurances aim to protect may have no recourse if they are violated.
The argument that extradition would be oppressive remains the strongest ground for appeal. However, it is likely Assange’s lawyers will also repeat some of the arguments which were unsuccessful in the District Court proceedings.
One argument is that the charges against Assange, particularly the espionage charges, are political offences. The United States–United Kingdom extradition treaty does not allow either state to extradite for political offences.
Assange is also likely to re-run the argument that his leaks of classified documents were exercises of his right to freedom of expression under the European Convention on Human Rights. To date, the European Court of Human Rights has never found that an extradition request violates freedom of expression. For the High Court to do so would be an innovative ruling.
The High Court will hear two days of legal argument and might not give its judgement immediately, but it will probably be delivered soon after the hearing. Whatever the decision, Assange’s supporters will continue their political campaign, supported by the Australian government, to stop the prosecution.
Chris Hedges: Julian Assange’s Final Appeal
Julian Assange will make his final appeal this week to the British courts to avoid extradition. If he is extradited it is the death of investigations into the inner workings of power by the press.
By Chris Hedges / ScheerPost, 18 Feb 24
LONDON — If Julian Assange is denied permission to appeal his extradition to the United States before a panel of two judges at the High Court in London this week, he will have no recourse left within the British legal system. His lawyers can ask the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) for a stay of execution under Rule 39, which is given in “exceptional circumstances” and “only where there is an imminent risk of irreparable harm.” But it is far from certain that the British court will agree. It may order Julian’s immediate extradition prior to a Rule 39 instruction or may decide to ignore a request from the ECtHR to allow Julian to have his case heard by the court.
The nearly 15-year-long persecution of Julian, which has taken a heavy toll on his physical and psychological health, is done in the name of extradition to the U.S. where he would stand trial for allegedly violating 17 counts of the 1917 Espionage Act, with a potential sentence of 170 years.
Julian’s “crime” is that he published classified documents, internal messages, reports and videos from the U.S. government and U.S. military in 2010, which were provided by U.S. army whistleblower Chelsea Manning. This vast trove of material revealed massacres of civilians, torture, assassinations, the list of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay and the conditions they were subjected to, as well as the Rules of Engagement in Iraq. Those who perpetrated these crimes — including the U.S. helicopter pilots who gunned down two Reuters journalists and 10 other civilians and severely injured two children, all captured in the Collateral Murder video — have never been prosecuted.
Julian exposed what the U.S. empire seeks to airbrush out of history.
Julian’s persecution is an ominous message to the rest of us. Defy the U.S. imperium, expose its crimes, and no matter who you are, no matter what country you come from, no matter where you live, you will be hunted down and brought to the U.S. to spend the rest of your life in one of the harshest prison systems on earth. If Julian is found guilty it will mean the death of investigative journalism into the inner workings of state power. To possess, much less publish, classified material — as I did when I was a reporter for The New York Times — will be criminalized. And that is the point, one understood by The New York Times, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, El País and The Guardian, who issued a joint letter calling on the U.S. to drop the charges against him.
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and other federal lawmakers voted on Thursday for the United States and Britain to end Julian’s incarceration, noting that it stemmed from him “doing his job as a journalist” to reveal “evidence of misconduct by the U.S.”
The legal case against Julian, which I have covered from the beginning and will cover again in London this week, has a bizarre Alice-in-Wonderland quality, where judges and lawyers speak in solemn tones about law and justice while making a mockery of the most basic tenants of civil liberties and jurisprudence.
How can hearings go forward when the Spanish security firm at the Ecuadorian Embassy, UC Global, where Julian sought refuge for seven years, provided videotaped surveillance of meetings between Julian and his lawyers to the CIA, eviscerating attorney-client privilege? This alone should have seen the case thrown out of court.
How can the Ecuadorian government led by Lenin Moreno violate international law by rescinding Julian’s asylum status and permit London Metropolitan Police into the Ecuadorian Embassy — sovereign territory of Ecuador — to carry Julian to a waiting police van?
Why did the courts accept the prosecution’s charge that Julian is not a legitimate journalist?
Why did the United States and Britain ignore Article 4 of their Extradition Treaty that prohibits extradition for political offenses?
How is the case against Julian allowed to go ahead after the key witness for the United States, Sigurdur Thordarson – a convicted fraudster and pedophile – admitted to fabricating the accusations he made against Julian?
How can Julian, an Australian citizen, be charged under the U.S. Espionage Act when he did not engage in espionage and wasn’t based in the U.S when he received the leaked documents?
Why are the British courts permitting Julian to be extradited to the U.S. when the CIA — in addition to putting Julian under 24-hour video and digital surveillance while in the Ecuadorian Embassy — considered kidnapping and assassinating him, plans that included a potential shoot-out on the streets of London with involvement by the Metropolitan Police?
How can Julian be condemned as a publisher when he did not, as Daniel Ellsberg did, obtain and leak the classified documents he published?
Why is the U.S. government not charging the publisher of The New York Times or The Guardian with espionage for publishing the same leaked material in partnership with WikiLeaks?
Why is Julian being held in isolation in a high-security prison without trial for nearly five years when his only technical violation of the law is breaching bail conditions when he sought asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy? Normally this would entail a fine. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Julian’s lawyers will attempt to convince two High Court judges to grant him permission to appeal a number of the arguments against extradition which Judge Baraitser dismissed in January 2021. His lawyers, if the appeal is granted, will argue that prosecuting Julian for his journalistic activity represents a “grave violation” of his right to free speech; that Julian is being prosecuted for his political opinions, something which the U.K.-U.S. extradition treaty does not allow; that Julian is charged with “pure political offenses” and the U.K.-U.S. extradition treaty prohibits extradition under such circumstances; that Julian should not be extradited to face prosecution where the Espionage Act “is being extended in an unprecedented and unforeseeable way”; that the charges could be amended resulting in Julian facing the death penalty; and that Julian will not receive a fair trial in the U.S. They are also asking for the right to introduce new evidence about CIA plans to kidnap and assassinate Julian.
If the High Court grants Julian permission to appeal, a further hearing will be scheduled during which time he will argue his appeal grounds. If the High Court refuses to grant Julian permission to appeal, the only option left is to appeal to the ECtHR. If he is unable to take his case to the ECtHR he will be extradiated to the U.S.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. No other contemporary journalist has come close to matching his revelations.
Julian is the first. We are next. https://scheerpost.com/2024/02/18/chris-hedges-julian-assanges-final-appealchris-hedges/—
ICJ Hearings to Examine 57 Years of Israeli Occupation of Palestine
“Decades of injustice will finally face scrutiny,” said U.N. human rights official Francesca Albanese ahead of next week’s Hague hearings on the legal consequences of Israel’s illegal occupation.
Brett Wilkins, Common Dreams, 16 Feb 24 ,
https://www.commondreams.org/news/israeli-occupation
More than 50 countries are set to participate in next week’s hearings at the International Court of Justice focusing on Israel’s illegal 57-year occupation of Palestine, a forum that follows the Hague tribunal’s finding last month that Israel is “plausibly” committing genocide in occupied Gaza.
The ICJ—also known as the World Court—will hold a week of hearings on the legal consequences of Israel’s occupation of Palestine, which dates to the Israeli conquest of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza Strip, Syrian Golan Heights, and Egyptian Sinai Peninsula during the 1967 Six-Day War.
“The International Court of Justice is set for the first time to broadly consider the legal consequences of Israel’s nearly six-decades-long occupation and mistreatment of the Palestinian people,” Human Rights Watch senior legal adviser Clive Baldwin said in a statement. “Governments that are presenting their arguments to the court should seize these landmark hearings to highlight the grave abuses Israeli authorities are committing against Palestinians, including the crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution.”
The West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Golan Heights remain under Israeli military occupation six decades after their conquest. The United Nations—to which the ICJ belongs—and many international NGOs contend that, despite removing its troops and settlers from Gaza two decades ago, Israel continues to occupy Gaza by controlling the besieged enclave’s airspace, territorial waters, and the entry and exit of people and goods.
Since the October 7 Hamas-led attacks on Israel, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have killed or wounded more than 100,000 Palestinians in Gaza while forcibly displacing around 90% of the population. Numerous Israeli leaders have called for the renewed physical occupation, Jewish resettlement, and ethnic cleansing of the strip.
During the current assault on Gaza, occupation forces have also killed at least 388 Palestinians, including 99 children, in the West Bank, according to U.N. human rights officials.
Israeli settlers have for decades been steadily colonizing the occupied territories under the protection of the IDF, while ethnically cleansing Palestinians whose lands and homes they steal.
Next week’s hearings come on the heels of the ICJ’s provisional ruling last month in a case led by South Africa—which will be the first nation after Palestine to present at next week’s hearing—that Israel is “plausibly” committing genocide in Gaza. The tribunal ordered Israel to “take all measures within its power” to adhere to its obligations under Article II of the Genocide Convention.
Earlier this week, South Africa urgently appealed to the ICJ to act amid the looming threat of an Israeli ground invasion of Rafah. More than 1.5 million Palestinians, most of them refugees ordered to flee to the south of Gaza by invading Israeli forces, are crammed into what is now one of the world’s most densely populated places.
On Friday, the ICJ declined to take any additional action against Israel, while reiterating that the “perilous situation” in Rafah “demands immediate and effective implementation of the provisional measures indicated by the court” in last month’s ruling.
Biden & Blinken – Rule of Illegal Power Over Rule of Law
By Ralph Nader, February 16, 2024,
more https://nader.org/2024/02/16/biden-blinken-rule-of-illegal-power-over-rule-of-law/
Among the puzzling questions that the media chooses to ignore is asking high government officials why they are exercising the illegal use of power that violates the rule of law which they are required to obey.
This week, the Veterans for Peace (VFP) made it very easy for reporters to pose questions by sending an open letter (See veteransforpeace.org) to the Inspector General of the U.S. State Department and Antony Blinken, Secretary of State, invoking several U.S. statutes that require the “termination of provision of military weapons and munitions to Israel.”
Josh Paul, a former senior official in the State Department’s office charged with reviewing weapon transfers to foreign countries, said: “The Secretary and all relevant officials under his purview should take this letter from Veterans for Peace with the utmost seriousness. It is a stark reminder of the importance of abiding by the laws and policies that relate to arms transfers.”
What laws are being violated by the State Department daily as it approves ships and cargo planes full of weapons of mass destruction to be used in Israel’s war crimes and genocide against hundreds of thousands of Gaza’s civilians, mostly children and women?
These are the laws highlighted in the VFP letter:
- The Foreign Assistance Act, which forbids the provision of assistance to a government which “engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.”
- Arms Export Control Act, which says countries that receive US military aid can only use weapons for legitimate self-defense and internal security. Israel’s genocidal campaign in Gaza goes way beyond self-defense and internal security.
- The U.S. War Crimes Act, which forbids grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, including wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and unlawful deportation or transfer, perpetrated by the Israeli Occupying Forces.
- The Leahy Law, which prohibits the U.S. Government from using funds for assistance to units of foreign security forces where there is credible information implicating that unit in the commission of gross violations of human rights.
- The Genocide Convention Implementation Act, which was enacted to implement U.S. obligations under the Genocide Convention, provides for criminal penalties for individuals who commit or incite others to commit genocide
Under these laws, the State Department has a “Conventional Arms Transfer Policy” which, the letter notes, “prohibit [U.S. weapons transfers when it’s likely they] will be used by Israel to commit … genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, [including attacks intentionally directed against civilian objects or civilians protected] or other serious violations of international humanitarian or human rights laws.”
The VFP letter continues, “Dozens of authoritative complaints and referrals made by hospital administrators in Gaza, as well as by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Palestine Authority, South Africa, Turkey, Medicins san Frontieres, UNRWA, UNICEF, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the Norwegian Refugee Council and the World Food Programme have confirmed that there is an ongoing human rights and humanitarian disaster due to Israel’s cutoff of water and electricity, deliberate destruction of sewage infrastructure and delaying of aid shipments by Israeli forces.”
If you are wondering why these laws are not being enforced – the answer is that individual citizens or groups of citizens do not have any “legal standing” to sue Secretary Blinken, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. Only a Committee of Congress, backed by a Senate or House Resolution, can take the State Department to federal court. That action to enforce Congressionally passed and enacted laws is not likely to happen in this lawless, Israeli government-indentured Congress which refuses even to demand a ceasefire.
Mike Ferner, VFP National Director, observed “Just as any good soldiers can recognize when they are given an unlawful order, we believe some State Department staff are horrified at the orders they’re given and will decide to uphold the law, find the courage to speak out and demand an end to the carnage.”
There is a related serious matter, pointed out by international law practitioner, Bruce Fein who said “The United States has clearly become a co-belligerent with Israel in its war against Hamas-Gaza Palestinians by systematically supplying the IDF with weapons and intelligence without conditions. Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, nationals of a co-belligerent state are not regarded as protected persons if their state has customary diplomatic relations with an allied nation [in this case, Israel].”
For decades, the State Department has had an independent Office of the Legal Adviser. The present occupant of that post, acting legal adviser Richard C. Visek has been publicly silent. I am sending the Veterans for Peace letter to him and asking him to respond to this letter and to the American people who pay his salary.
Julian Assange’s Final Appeal at the Royal Courts of Justice 20-21 Feb. What to Expect.
Day X is here! Julian Assange’s Final Appeal at the Royal Courts of Justice.
STELLA ASSANGE, FEB 19, 2024, Stella Assange – The Fight to Save my Husband
The new public hearing dates are upon us. We will be gathering outside the Royal Courts of Justice on Tuesday and Wednesday, 20-21 February. It may be the final chance for the UK to stop Julian’s extradition.
Date: 20-21 February 2024
Location: Royal Courts of Justice
Time: 8:30 am GMT
On Wed 21 Feb, there will be a march to Downing St after the hearing.
Here’s what to expect on the two days.
Meet our presenters that will be live outside the Royal Courts of Justice…………………….
JADC (The Committee to Defend Julian Assange), one of the oldest grassroots groups here in the UK will be helping us to sell T-shirts, bags, badges and our new hoodies. So, make sure to come by and say hi to Emmy and Jeannie who will be manning our table.
There will be speakers throughout the two days! Including:
Apsana Begum
Tim Dawson
John Hendy
Richard Burgon
Peter Oborne
Jeremy Corbyn
John McDonnell
Zarah Sultana
Chris Hedges
Andrew Feinstein
Andrew Wilkie
Tariq Ali
Rebecca Vincent
Ben Westwood
PEN International
Clare Daley
Mick Wallace
Chip Gibbons
Here’s how you can help………………………………………..
Dutch appeals court orders Netherlands to stop exports of F-35 parts to Israel, citing war in Gaza
AP News, BY MOLLY QUELL, 10, February 13, 2024
THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — An appeals court ordered the Dutch government on Monday to halt the export of F-35 fighter jet parts to Israel, citing a clear risk of violations of international law.
A trio of human rights organizations brought a civil suit against the Netherlands in December, arguing authorities needed to reevaluate the export license in light of Israeli military action in the Gaza Strip.
“It is undeniable that there is a clear risk that the exported F-35 parts are used in serious violations of international humanitarian law,” Judge Bas Boele said in reading out the ruling, eliciting cheers from several people in the courtroom.
The exports must cease within seven days……………………………………………
Oxfam Novib, Pax Nederland and The Rights Forum filed the case in December. They argued the continued transfer of the aircraft parts makes the Netherlands complicit in possible war crimes being committed by Israel in its war with Hamas.
In January, a lower court sided with the government, allowing the Dutch to continue sending U.S.-owned parts stored at a warehouse in the town of Woensdrecht to Israel. The Netherlands is home to one of three F-35 European regional warehouses.
Other countries are also considering restricting weapons sales to Israel. Human rights groups in the United Kingdom have brought a similar suit against their government, attempting to block weapons exports to Israel.
In the United States, Democrats in the Senate are pushing a bill that would require President Joe Biden to get congressional approval before greenlighting weapons sales to Israel………………………………….https://apnews.com/article/netherlands-court-f35-israel-b33608b054a33fbacc518395b53b74e8
South Africa lodges Urgent Complaint with Int’l Court of Justice over Israel’s Plan to Assault Rafah
JUAN COLE, 02/14/2024
Ann Arbor (Informed Comment) – The South African government lodged an urgent complaint on Monday at the International Court of Justice against the plan announced by Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to attack Rafah in southern Gaza, where 1.4 million people, most of them refugees from elsewhere, have been pushed by the Israeli military. So reports Siyabonga Mkhwanazi at Pretoria’s Independent On Line (IOL) (a consortium of South Africa newspapers).
The IOL says that President Cyril Ramaphosa confirmed Tuesday that South Africa has inquired with the ICJ whether it needs to issue another preliminary judgment to stop Israel’s planned offensive against Rafah. The Court is permitted to issue provisional orders at any time without having to convene to decide the case finally.
Lizeka Tandwa at the Mail & Guardian reports that the further submission to the court pointed out that “Rafah is the last refuge for the surviving people in Gaza.”
Vincent Magwenya, the spokesman for South African’s president, posted this statement to the presidency web site:
………………………………………………………………………https://www.juancole.com/2024/02/complaint-justice-israels.html
Law not War global meeting of participating organizations.
Online. February 20, 2024
Contact LAW not War if you are interested in participating in the meeting.
LAW not War is a global coalition and campaign to enhance the jurisdiction and use of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in order to assist countries in resolving international disputes peacefully rather than through recourse to the threat or use of force.
The authority of the ICJ within the United Nations system, and the unique contribution the ICJ plays with respect to the application of the law, ensures that its decisions exert considerable influence and impact on the parties and other stakeholders in its cases. Better use of this authority should be made to end the scourge of war, as envisaged in the UN Charter.
LAW not War was launched in October 2023 by a coalition of seven co-sponsoring organizations and more than 80 participating organizations (see LAW not War for the list of organizations). This meeting will provide opportunities to learn more about the role of the ICJ and discuss strategies to encourage greater acceptance and use of ICJ jurisdiction.
The meeting is open for representatives of LAW not War participating organizations and organizations that are considering joining LAW not War.
Contact LAW not War if you are interested in participating in the meeting. It will be held in two sessions – one timed to suit participants from Asia/Pacific, the other timed to suit participants from the Americas/Africa/Europe/Middle East.
Public hearings on the International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on Israel and Palestine February 19-26, 2024
On February 9, 2024, the ICJ announced that from February 19-26 it will hold public hearings on the request for an Advisory Opinion in respect of the Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. Fifty-two States and three international organizations have expressed their intention to participate in the oral proceedings before the Court.
In it’s request for the Advisory Opinion, the UN General Assembly asks the ICJ:
- (a) What are the legal consequences arising from the ongoing violation by Israel of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, from its prolonged occupation, settlement and annexation of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and from its adoption of related discriminatory legislation and measures?
- (b) How do the policies and practices of Israel referred to in paragraph 18 (a) above affect the legal status of the occupation, and what are the legal consequences that arise for all States and the United Nations from this status?”
The hearings will be streamed live and on demand (VOD) in the two official languages of the Court on the Court’s website and on UN Web TV.
Ohio Attorney General announces new indictments in FirstEnergy nuclear plant bailout scandal
Two former FirstEnergy executives and the former chairman of the Ohio Public Utilities Commission face 27 felony counts for their role in the House Bill 6 bribery scheme.
KEVIN KOENINGER / February 12, 2024, https://www.courthousenews.com/ohio-ag-announces-new-indictments-in-firstenergy-nuclear-plant-bailout-scandal/—
COLUMBUS (CN) — Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost promised to hold “the checkwriters and the masterminds accountable” Monday as he announced indictments against executives over a bribery scandal surrounding the taxpayer-funded bailout of several failing nuclear power plants.
Yost said the FirstEnergy executives — Chuck Jones, the former CEO, and Michael Dowling, former vice president of external affairs — worked with attorney Sam Randazzo, former chairman of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, or PUCO, to further their legislative interests and ensure their employer was not targeted by the commission.
The charges, filed in Summit County, are the first for Jones and Dowling, while Randazzo was previously indicted by the federal government and pleaded not guilty to multiple wire fraud charges in December 2023.
Jones and Dowling are expected to surrender to authorities later Monday.
“This indictment is about more than one piece of legislation,” Yost said at a news conference announcing the indictments. “It is about the hostile capture of a significant portion of Ohio’s state government by deception, betrayal and dishonesty.
“There can be no justice without holding the checkwriters and the masterminds accountable. Shout it from the public square to the boardroom, from Wall Street and Broad and High: Those who perversely seek to turn the government to their own private ends will face the destruction of everything they worked for,” he said.
The indictment names two shell companies run by Randazzo, alongside Jones, Dowling, and the former utilities commission chairman, and were integral to the defendants’ scheme, according to Yost.
The attorney general’s office writes in the charging document that Randazzo negotiated settlements with FirstEnergy on behalf of several clients associated with the Industrial Energy Users-Ohio trade association, but then used legal assignments to transfer those settlements to his shell companies, including Sustainability Funding Alliance of Ohio Inc.
According to Yost, Randazzo earned millions of dollars for consulting services at FirstEnergy — without his clients’ knowledge — and lobbied for the energy provider to secure subsidies eventually included in the ill-fated House Bill 6.
That legislation included a bailout of over $1 billion to save two struggling nuclear power plants owned by FirstEnergy in northern Ohio, and eventually resulted in the indictment, trial and conviction of former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder.
The Republican politician was convicted of a single RICO charge in March 2023 and is serving a 20-year sentence in federal prison while his appeal is pending before the Sixth Circuit.
Matt Borges, former Ohio Republican Party Chairman, was convicted alongside Householder, and is serving a five-year sentence in federal prison.
FirstEnergy paid Randazzo over $13 million through his shell companies between 2016 and 2019, and he pocketed over $5.3 million of that money for himself, the attorney general writes in the indictment.
Jones and Dowling then agreed to make a one-time payment of $4.3 million from FirstEnergy to Randazzo on Jan. 2, 2019, weeks before the attorney became chairman, a position he abused to “bend the PUCO around FirstEnergy’s will,” according to Yost.
To conduct the investigation, the Ohio Organized Crime Commission organized a task force at the behest of Summit County Prosecutor Sherri Bevan Walsh.
“These individuals used FirstEnergy to break the law and betray the public’s trust,” Walsh said at Monday’s news conference. “This indictment is another step toward bringing justice for the residents of Summit County and Ohio.”
Randazzo was indicted on 22 felony counts, including engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity, aggravated theft, bribery and eight counts of money laundering, among others, while Jones and Dowling face 10 and 12 felony counts, respectively.
Oxfam reaction to the Dutch court’s decision to stop military exports to Israel
February 13, 2024, by: The AIM Network, https://theaimn.com/oxfam-reaction-to-the-dutch-courts-decision-to-stop-military-exports-to-israel/—
Oxfam Novib, together with PAX, and the Rights Forum organisations, has won a lawsuit against the Dutch Government for exporting arms to Israel that are being used in the war in Gaza. The Dutch Court ordered the government of Netherlands to stop supplying F35 fighter jet parts to Israel within seven days, due to the clear risk of serious violations of international humanitarian law. The decision comes following the three organisations’ appeal to the court case against the Dutch government for supplying Israel with military equipment despite knowing they are used to commit war crimes in Gaza. The judge concluded, based on reports from Amnesty and the UN, that many civilians, including children, are being targeted.
In response to the ruling, Michiel Servaes – Oxfam Novib Executive Director – said:
“This positive ruling by the judge is very good news, especially for civilians in Gaza. It is an important step to force the Dutch government to adhere to international law, which the Netherlands has strongly advocated for in the past. Israel has just launched an attack against the city of Rafah, where more than half of Gaza’s population are sheltering, the Netherlands must take immediate steps.”
“It is a pity that this legal action was necessary and, unfortunately, has taken four months to come to this conclusion. The judge had ruled that the Dutch Minister of Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation was obliged to re-examine the arms export license to Israel, and that his decision was taken incorrectly. We hope that this verdict can encourage other countries to follow suit, so that civilians in Gaza are protected by international law.”
Ukraine v Russia genocide case: ICJ delivers judgment on preliminary objections
On February 2, the ICJ delivered its judgment on preliminary objections from Russia in the case Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation: 32 States intervening).
Ukraine alleges in their case against the Russian Federation that:
- Russia falsely accused Ukraine of committing genocide and used this as justification to launch its invasion against Ukraine;
- Russia committed violations of the Genocide Convention in declaring the Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic to be independent from Ukraine, and by launching its invasion of Ukraine on 21 February, 2022.
The Russian Federation argued that the ICJ did not have jurisdiction to consider the allegations and that they were inadmissible.
In its judgment, the ICJ concluded that it had jurisdiction to consider the first allegation of Ukraine and that this was admissible, but that it does not have jurisdiction under the Genocide Convention to consider the second allegation of Ukraine and that this was inadmissible. See Summary of the Judgment.
In turning down the second allegation of Ukraine, the ICJ explained that in this case they are constrained by the obligations under the Genocide convention, and cannot apply law extrinsic to the Convention, including law governing the use of force.
This demonstrates one of the key differences between ICJ cases based on jurisdiction found in treaties, where the Court can only consider the obligations under the treaty concerned, and jurisdiction found under the Declarations of Acceptance of ICJ Jurisdiction (under Article 36 of the ICJ Statute). In the latter case, the ICJ is generally able to apply all law relevant to a dispute between the parties. This is one of the reasons why the primary goal of the LAW not War campaign is to work for the acceptance by all States of ICJ jurisdiction under Article 36.
1 This Month
petition to oppose the rapid increase of space-military industry threatening Jeju Island and the region.
[Petition by April 19th (KST)] Stop the joint military-Hanwha Systems-Jeju Provincial Government Sea Launch!
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
of the week–London Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Tell the Ukrainian Government to Drop Prosecution of Peace Activist Yurii Sheliazhenko
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- April 2026 (194)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 