Breakfast at WordPress

May 21, 2013 //
0

Because stopping excess can become excessive, I am here to write, online. I am back at one of my ‘sites’ of work, one of my many ‘work sites’ both digital and three-dimensional (and isn’t digital becoming three-dimensional?) What has my time offline taught me thus far? Well, that a sense of connection is imbued for many of us isolates (eccentrics, radicals, etc.) within the digital sphere, where ‘we’ can ‘meet’ despite great physical differences. In fact, I’ve a best friend from WordPress. And so I am asking myself, and us, what do we want to use the internet for? What is it that drives us to these nebulous circuit boards? A deep need for connection in a post-modern alienated world? What a banal analysis! Risible and banal, this is repeated like a mantra by technophobes; ah, it sounds like I am changing my tune? Yes, slightly, I am not a Luddite or Romantic anymore, and my pragmatic side has asserted itself. The reasons people use the internet and other digital media are complex; there is no one analysis that covers the vastness of human experience. The existential phenomenological crises that is your life precedes the internet and in fact all of modernity. One need only to read the works of Augustine, Plato and the Buddha to know that digital malaise is just one complex flavour of neurosis.

I am beginning to see the internet in a different way. Again, I am seeing it as I saw it years ago: as a tool. Something that I use, something that have available but that doesn’t use or have me available to it (I say it because friends can make one available through it). So yes, Andy Warhol was right: we all have our 15 Minutes of Fame and perhaps no one is watching, listening or even cares; however what does it matter? As writers, scholars, artists and others of past who wrote and worked in isolated studios or huts, they weren’t being watched. It was about the work in-itself. The need to be viewed is almost universal to the human species, we want to be noticed. But the hyper-induction of exhibition malaise through the internet has intensified this affectivity.

The medicine is what you make (it.)

So, my most recent painting piece, “Hypocrisy: Parents Who Have Children They Don’t Want; Israelis Who Cage And Brutalize Gazans; Gazans Who Go to Great Lengths to Eat Caged and Brutalised Chickens.”

It is looking for a home; please consider purchasing it here.

"Hypocrisy: Parents Who Have Children They Don't Want; Israelis Who Cage And Brutalize Gazans; Gazans Who Go to Great Lengths to Eat Caged and Brutalised Chickens." (2013)

“Hypocrisy: Parents Who Have Children They Don’t Want; Israelis Who Cage And Brutalize Gazans; Gazans Who Go to Great Lengths to Eat Caged and Brutalised Chickens.” (2013)

Close ups

"Hypocrisy: Parents Who Have Children They Don't Want; Israelis Who Cage And Brutalize Gazans; Gazans Who Go to Great Lengths to Eat Caged and Brutalised Chickens." (2013) Close up Left Side

“Hypocrisy: Parents Who Have Children They Don’t Want; Israelis Who Cage And Brutalize Gazans; Gazans Who Go to Great Lengths to Eat Caged and Brutalised Chickens.” (2013) Close up Right Side

"Hypocrisy: Parents Who Have Children They Don't Want; Israelis Who Cage And Brutalize Gazans; Gazans Who Go to Great Lengths to Eat Caged and Brutalised Chickens." (2013) Close Upper Left Hand Side (Acrylic on Canvas 30" by 30")

“Hypocrisy: Parents Who Have Children They Don’t Want; Israelis Who Cage And Brutalize Gazans; Gazans Who Go to Great Lengths to Eat Caged and Brutalised Chickens.” (2013) Close Upper Left Hand Side (Acrylic on Canvas 30″ by 30″)

Tags , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories Feminism and Art, Cybernetics, The Internet, Art

Video: the Net & Consumerism

May 10, 2013 //
1
Categories capitalism, The Internet

Early 21st Century London

May 9, 2013 //
4
"The Trash of London" (2013) by Eilif Verney-Elliott

“The Trash of London” (2013) by Eilif Verney-Elliott

 

Tags , , , ,
Categories Art

The Politics of the Left

May 9, 2013 //
3

Occupy Wall Street opened up a debate in the ‘developed West’ (and elsewhere too) about class. Essentially, for the first time since the 1960s and 70s – following a financial crash then – a massive, national conversation about capitalism and social, economic, gender and racial disparity began in the United States. This conversation, which included the textual demands for taxes on the rich to a complete re-visioning of society, included tactical acts of civil disobedience and other forms of resistance. The US government, in all its various machinations, at the federal, state and local levels brutally suppressed this uprising. Whilst the US State Department lauded the revolution in Egypt (timorously and at the last moment), it engaged in egregiously unnecessary, unprecedented police action against protesters in the US. As ‘occupation’ camps spread throughout the US, people were pelted with rubber-coated metal bullets, hit with tear-gas canisters and beaten by the police. Scott Olsen, someone who survived military duties in Iraq, suffered brain damage after being hit with a metal canister at an Oakland anti-capitalist demonstration. The police then used ‘flash bang’ stun-bombs against those who tried to help him. I must say, the following video footage re-radicalised me, and sent me into the streets of New York City, I arrived at the Occupy Wall Street camp on October 31st 2011.

Here is an interview with Scott Olsen after recovering; during his recovery his language abilities were/are damaged.

The entire situation in Oakland – the police’s use of force against the anti-capitalist demonstrators – led to resistance from the Anarchists, especially the Black Bloc. The Black Block engages in non-violent disruption, including using various items for shields against police, returning gas-canisters to police, and damaging property (which is not violent; violence is constituted when damaging a person.) I supported the actions of Black Bloc, their use of face-masks to protect their identity, and I still do. Anarchists are playing a larger and larger role in the tactical and theoretical actions of anti-capitalist resistance, and as a liberal democratic socialist I support their efforts. From David Graeber, an anarchist intellectual and activist, to Dr. Cornel West a philosopher and democratic socialist, Occupy Wall Street had a broad New Left coalition, a fragile and important one.

Courtesy of The Guardian (UK)

Courtesy of The Guardian (UK)

Politically, personally and psychosocially there is a great need now, in 2013 and beyond, for a new ‘we’ to develop, a broad-based anti-capitalist movement that advocates for a decentralisation of wealth and power. Socialists want the means of production to be placed under democratic workers’ councils, a great disruption and eventual ending of hierarchy. Anarchists are, by their very name, against hierarchy. Anarchy means without hierarchy. Greens emphasise decentralisation in all their Party platforms. These could be the starting points for a broad ‘red-black-green’ coalition.

First we must confront disturbing authoritarian trends at the ‘upper-end’ of the Left. Generally not discussed is the history of Leninist-Trotsky oppression of anarchists in the Ukraine and elsewhere. These centralising-of-power and authoritarian moments, during the very beginnings of the Russian revolution (1917-1922), led to dismay and a general distraught fracturing of the Left. Rosa Luxemburg, a fellow of Lenin, critiqued his post-revolution centralism. Emma Goldman famously wrote two volumes on her Disillusionment in Russia. Lenin, along with Trotsky and Stalin brutally suppressed dissent and began a process of centralising control, dismantling the democratically elected parliament and many workers’ councils. Their violence against the peasantry surpassed that of the Tsar himself. Chairman Mao followed suit. Historically situated, anarchists, liberals, Greens and democratic socialists provide us with fresh 21st-century theories and tactics in the shadow of these failed ‘revolutions.’

Slavoj ZIzek, Stalinist-Marxist

Slavoj ZIzek, Stalinist-Marxist

Starting where we are, during a time of great military expansion and (further) erosion of civil liberties and international law under the Obama Administration, it is critical to begin examining who and what we are politically and socially. Some philosophers of the Left, like Alain Badiou and Slavoj Zizek both attach themselves to violent dictatorships of the past. Badiou is a Maoist and Zizek is a Stalinist. Both of these pro-dictatorship figures shine brightly in the media as representatives of the intellectual anti-capitalist movement. They are influential in both academia and within social justice movements. They cannot be dismissed. However, they can and must be critiqued.

To conclude, the Left, broadly speaking, should unite against austerity measures, cuts in social spending, should advocate for holding the US, Chinese and Russian imperial aims accountable to democratic law, and it must form a broad coalition. 21st Century Socialists, Greens and Anarchists (and even some liberals) can agree on a de-centralising of government and capitalist powers, but powerful Leftist-elitist intellectuals like Zizek and Badiou need to be marginalised. They represent the Old Leninist ‘Left’ and can do nothing to cripple capitalism – in fact, both are quiet personally content with it. Philosophically, politically and personally a movement that is directed by people en masse can demand a more democratic – that is horizontal, power sharing – society. A partially structured, partially loose ‘affiliation’ of feminists, queers, environmentalists, Marxists, democratic socialists and anarchists not directed by elites whether they be political, corporate or intellectual (or a combination thereof), I believe can make for a New Left of the Present.

Courtesy of libcom.org

Courtesy of libcom.org

Tags , , , , , , , , ,
Categories Intellectuals and Ethics, Socialism and Philosophy

“The Ode to Mark Rothko” (2013)

May 9, 2013 //
0
"The Ode to Mark Rothko" (2013) Acrylic on Canvas 3o" by 3o" by Eilif Verney-Elliott

“The Ode to Mark Rothko” (2013) Acrylic on Canvas 3o” by 3o” by Eilif Verney-Elliott

Tags , , ,
Categories Art

“The Passionate Anger of Truth” (2013)

May 7, 2013 //
0
"The Passionate Anger of Truth" (2013) Acrylic on Canvas 30" by 30"

“The Passionate Anger of Truth” (2013) Acrylic on Canvas 30″ by 30″

Tags , ,
Categories Art, Feminism and Art

Philosophy & the Totalitarian Trend

May 2, 2013 //
0

“The consistent anarchist, then, should be a socialist, but a socialist of a particular sort. He will not only oppose alienated and specialized labor and look forward to the appropriation of capital by the whole body of workers, but he will also insist that this appropriation be direct, not exercised by some elite force acting in the name of the proletariat …  Social and political issues in general seem to me fairly simple; the effort to obfuscate them in esoteric and generally vacuous theory is one of the contributions of the intelligentsia to enhancing their own power and the power of those they serve.” 

- Noam Chomsky

Here I examine the contemporary state of the intelligentsia, including the prominent philosophers Slavoj Zizek and Alain Badiou. Zizek is a Stalinist and Badiou considers himself a Maoist. At a time when the Left needs to regain its senses and work on immediate issues of civil liberties, decentralising power, ending economic inequality and democratically mobilising against US, Chinese and Russian imperialisms, it is striking that these totalitarians are not marginalised. But they are not. Like Heidegger, Zizek and Badiou wish for a ‘decider’ a ‘strong leader’ to move ‘the people’ and the discourse into a different direction; both eschew democracy, and both are ready to attack democratic socialism vowing themselves to a passive analysis of the ‘Idea of Communism’ (which seems to continually float around from one epoch to another without doing its ‘job’ except in certain Stalinist and Maoist re-contextualised potentialities.) Zizek egregiously states that Hitler did not go far enough, was not violent enough in changing the status quo; this shows Zizek’s inability, laziness and insensitivity regarding Hitler’s dramatic change and challenge to the liberal, democratic status quo of the Weimar Republic.

Additionally, both have leant their weight to the obscure Speculative Realist philosophical movement through highly influential book endorsements. Within Speculative Realism is Object-Oriented Philosophy which purports that all objects from a computer chip, Maoism, fascism and your child are equal in their ‘being.’ Another flavour of Speculative Realism is ‘Flat Ontology’ which, like the aforementioned, reduces all ‘things’ or ‘units’ or ‘chunks’ (their words) to the same ‘being.’ Flat ontology is a clear product of the screen age, whereby the flat screen (TV) and computer screen penetrates the consciousness of the deepest recesses of contemporary philosophical jargon.

The sociological implications of Zizek and Badious’ insidious love for totalitarian leadership, along with these obscure new movements within philosophy distract from the immediate work that needs to be done by the intelligentsia and others. The entire pull of these philosophies and their jargons drain much needed time and resource out the immediate political and social needs of ending economic inequality, civil disobedience against the US, Chinese and Russian imperial projects, and bringing war criminals like Obama to trial for crimes against humanity. Like the obscure philosophers of the 60s and 70s – Foucault (anti-humanist philosopher) and Kristeva (a Maoist until the late 70s) – these ‘fashionable’ thinkers are the nexus of many a dissertation and thought within and outside of academia.

We must question this trend, and look to intellectual like Noam Chomsky as a counter-balance.

“Unlike many leftists of his generation, Chomsky never flirted with movements or organizations that were later revealed to be totalitarian, oppressive, exclusionary, antirevolutionary, or elitist. Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, and Maoism offered to many of Chomsky’s disillusioned contemporaries an alternative to what they saw as blatantly exclusionary American-style capitalism. When reports about what had actually occurred in the former Soviet Union and China began to filter through, many felt betrayed. We now hear a lot about how the left has been discredited, the hopelessness of utopian thinking, the futility of activist struggle, but little about the libertarian options that Chomsky and others have so consistently presented. The type of dismay that has permeated contemporary intellectual circles has not touched Chomsky. He has very little to regret. His work, in fact, contains some of the most accurate analyses of this century. And yet, most of his criticisms of American policy, past and present, are seldom mentioned in the mainstream press or by the instructors and professors who teach history or politics. Political science departments rarely use his material on Vietnam, the Cold War, Central America, or Israel.”

- Robert Barsky, Noam Chomsky: A Life of Dissent, 1997

Tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories capitalism, Fashionable Nonsense, Philosophy, Socialism and Philosophy

The Internet & New Media: Initial Reactions

May 2, 2013 //
0

My final issue is identity, and it does stun me, Twitter for example, where the banality of some of the things that people feel they need to transmit to other human beings. Now what does this say about how you see yourself? Does this say anything about how secure you feel about yourself? Is it not marginally reminiscent of a small child saying “Look at me, look at me mummy! Now I’ve put my sock on. Now I’ve got my other sock on,” you know? And I’m just being neutral here, I’m just asking questions, right… What does this say about you as a person?

- Susan Greenfield, UK neuroscientist

"Electronic Cocaine" Photo Courtesy of The Telegraph

“Electronic Cocaine” Photo Courtesy of The Telegraph

“Let me say to you now that to do nothing at all is the most difficult thing in the world, the most difficult and the most intellectual. To Plato, with his passion for wisdom, this was the noblest form of energy.”

- Oscar Wilde, The Critic as Artist, 1891.

After reading a plethora of books on the internet and new media, and their contemporary psychosocial effects, I have come to some tentative conclusions. First let me share with you some of my reading materials (which are recommended.) Sherry Turkle’s Alone Together, Nicholas Carr’s The Shallows, neuroscientist Susan Greenfield’s ID and Tomorrow’s People, and Dr. Larry Rosen’s iDisorder. (I also examined ‘attachments’ and ‘compulsions’ more broadly with a reading of Dr. Mark Epstein’s book Going to Pieces Without Falling Apart.) First, I have come to see a common thread between the research of all of the above mentioned (internet-specific) authors: the Internet, the mobile computing revolution and new medias are dramatically changing the way we interact with others (interpersonal) and ourselves (intra-personal). And second, I find a startling number of cases of people being induced into crazy-making situations via these new forms of connection.

Sherry Turkle’s Alone Together starts with an amazing critique of the ‘robotic moment,’ the era of ‘companion’ robots to fill our loneliness, take care of the (lonely) elderly and (provide distractions, entertainments) keep our children busy. She moves on to case-history after case-history of people and their robots, people in love with their robots, and people who are starting to view robots as better than people. The book moves towards more case-histories, this time of internet obsessives, mobile phone users who have near-romantic relationships with their iPhones and iDevices. In the world of ‘i,’ Turkle asks, what about ‘we?’

Nicholas Carr’s The Shallows is a fascinating read. He delves deep into the history of tools and their affects on the user. However, he notes the ways in which, as Susan Greenfield too notes, the internet, hyper-connectivity and hyper-stimulation are creating a culture of ADD-esque professionals pushing their iPads manically and drooling teenage (boys) who never come out of their ‘cave’ whilst playing World of Warcraft for 20 hours (and yes people do play it for 20 hours.)  Dr. Larry Rosen’s iDisorder documents yet more trends of internet and new media induced mental illnesses: ranging from obsessive-complusive disorders, social withdrawal disorders, including schizotypal like behaviours, exacerbated bipolar disorder ‘mood swings’ and even psychosis. Dr. Rosen is more forgiving than the others, and he notes that the internet can be useful for helping people with shyness or social anxiety disorders by allowing them to practise communication and make friends online. However, he cautions that we must move from the ‘online’ to the more synchronous ‘real’ if we are to maintain genuine friendships. Face(s)-to-face(s) or person(s)-to-person(s) conversations are, and will always be for us homo sapiens, the best form of synchronous, dynamic communication.

Ultimately, as the Greenfield quote above notes, which is from a fuller interview here for more context, the internet and new medias (like Twitter) are shaping our identities and this is a powerful force, a force that is created out of the military-industrial complex and controlled by major corporations. From a political and social change perspective, let us translate Gil Scott-Heron’s brilliant statement “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised” into contemporary idiom “The Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted.” All of this research has led me to become more sceptic of the internet, and whilst Dr. Rosen is more forgiving than the other authors, he actually uses the words ‘internet addiction.’  In relation to internet addictions, here is an excellent article from The Telegraph called Electronic Cocaine. A cursory look around the streets, cafes or restaurants of any major city will show you, in the so-called ‘media rich’ developed world, we are all, as Turkle states “tethered selves.”

The 'tethered self'

The ‘tethered self’

Tags , , , , ,
Categories capitalism, Cybernetics, Psychoanalysis, Psychotherapy, The Internet

Essential Viewing: Dr. Cornel West

May 2, 2013 //
0

From April 11th of 2013

Abby Martin talks to activist, author and Princeton professor, Dr. Cornel West, about class warfare, race issues, corporate greed, and the American empire.

(As an aside, Dr. Cornel West is my favourite living philosopher.)

Tags , , ,
Categories capitalism, Intellectuals and Ethics, Socialism and Philosophy

The Third Candidacy: Obama on Trial

May 2, 2013 //
0
Who Are You?

Candidate for International Crimes Against Humanity

President Obama has been viciously attacked by rabid racists on the conservative end of the US political and social spectrum. And unjustly so. Their reasons for attack are risible, inane and need to be rebuked. A broad coalition of LGBTQ, immigrants, white liberals and Latino and Black voters brought together a united Left front against the increasingly anachronistic Republican party. However, the Left – in the US and internationally – needs to ‘up the pressure’ on the Obama Administration now that it has secured a second term. Obama himself has been a dismal failure in the realm of international policy, maintaining many of the features of the Bush-era imperialist vision. In fact, Obama has increased un-personed drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan, extended attacks on places like Yemen and Somalia. Most notoriously, and in total violation of the US constitution and international law, the US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old son were killed by a US drone in Yemen on September 30th of 2011. Osama bin Laden and Muammar al-Gaddafi, both well-known alleged war criminals, were not given a proper trial; furthermore, al-Gaddafi suffered severe torture, and this seemed to be lauded by senior members of the Obama Administration. Here we must remind ourselves that even Eichmann and Nazi officials received a trials. International law is there for a reason, and it must be adhered to. Obama’s drone strikes, his lax attitude on indefinite detentions and brutal attacks on Libya without the consent of Congress are all violations of basic principles of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Recently, Noam Chomsky was interview in The Washington Times here and he noted Obama violated the ancient law, the Magna Carta.

“The only protest that’s being raised is in response to detention of American citizens, but I don’t see why we should have the right to detain anyone without trial,” Chomsky said. “The provision of the NDAA that allows for this should not be tolerated. It was banned almost eight centuries ago in the Magna Carta.“It’s the same with the drone killings. There was some protest over the Anwar al-Awlaki killing because he was an American citizen. But what about someone who isn’t an American citizen? Do we have a right to murder them if the president feels like it?”

Obama, who authorises the use of torture at US detention facilities like Guantánamo Bay is clearly in violation many articles in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Of Article 5, which states “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” As mentioned above in the cases Osama bin Laden, Muammar al-Gaddafi, and Anwar al-Awlaki he is also in violation of Article 6 “Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.” Article 9 is even more explicit on the matter of due process, “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.” (The piece about exile applies, as through multiple UN resolutions, to the Palestinian people, who have benefited nil from Obama’s rhetoric.) On immigration, which Obama’s appalling record of detention and extradition of immigrants, he is in violation of Article 13, section 1, “Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.” And the list goes on…

Distinguished Professor Cornel West has been very candid about the man he supported for president:

Here, in a brief public statement, I call on Obama to be prosecuted under international law; in essence, I ask that the Left move to support a ‘third candidacy’ for Obama, that as a candidate for prosecution as a War Criminal.

I mention these UNDHR articles because Obama is a trained lawyer, and he is a constitutional legal expert as well. Importantly, he is aware of these and other articles of law he is breaching on a daily basis, wreaking havoc in the world. The US imperial project is expanding under Obama’s watch. Furthermore, I contend that a formal case against Obama should be made in the International Criminal Court based in the Hague.

(Note: Unless you are interested in the legal specifics a cursory perusal of the section in bold is simply necessary to demonstrate Obama’s potential candidacy for prosecution by the ICC, you can skip to my finishing statement which is at the bottom end)

According to the ICC’s Rome Statute, Obama’s actions fall within its jurisdiction. Article 5 states,

Crimes within the jurisdiction of the CourtThe jurisdiction of the Court shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. The Court has jurisdiction in accordance with this Statute with respect to the following crimes:

  1. (a)  The crime of genocide;

  2. (b)  Crimes against humanity;

  3. (c)  War crimes;

  4. (d)  The crime of aggression.

Whilst the Obama may not meet the crime of genocide, he definitely meets the criteria for prosecution under section 2, 3 and 4.

Article 7
Crimes against humanity1. For the purpose of this Statute, “crime against humanity” means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

  1. (a)  Murder;
  2. (b)  Extermination;
  3. (c)  Enslavement;
  4. (d)  Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
  5. (e)  Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
    1. (f)  Torture;
    2. (g)  Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
    3. (h)  Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
    4. (i)  Enforced disappearance of persons;
    5. (j)  The crime of apartheid;
    6. (k)  Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

    2. For the purpose of paragraph 1:

    1. (a)  ”Attack directed against any civilian population” means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack;
    2. (b)  ”Extermination” includes the intentional infliction of conditions of life, inter alia the deprivation of access to food and medicine, calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population;
    3. (c)  ”Enslavement” means the exercise of any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over a person and includes the exercise of such power in the course of trafficking in persons, in particular women and children;
    4. (d)  ”Deportation or forcible transfer of population” means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law;
    5. (e)  ”Torture” means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions;
    6. (f)  ”Forced pregnancy” means the unlawful confinement of a woman forcibly made pregnant, with the intent of affecting the ethnic composition of any population or carrying out other grave violations of international law. This definition shall not in any way be interpreted as affecting national laws relating to pregnancy;
    7. (g)  ”Persecution” means the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity;
    8. (h)  ”The crime of apartheid” means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime;
      Article 8, War crimes

      1. The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.
      2. For the purpose of this Statute, “war crimes” means:

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

      Wilful killing;Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power;Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement;Taking of hostages.
      (b) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

      1. (i)  Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
      2. (ii)  Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;
      3. (iii)  Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;
      Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;Killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;Making improper use of a flag of truce, of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury;The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory;Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives;Subjecting persons who are in the power of an adverse party to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are neither justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his or her interest, and which cause death to or seriously endanger the health of such person or persons;Killing or wounding treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;Declaring that no quarter will be given;Destroying or seizing the enemy’s property unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;Declaring abolished, suspended or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party;Compelling the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent’s service before the commencement of the war;Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault; Employing poison or poisoned weapons;Employing asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all analogous liquids, materials or devices;Employing bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions;
      page13image29064
      page14image1200
      1. (xx)  Employing weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering or which are inherently indiscriminate in violation of the international law of armed conflict, provided that such weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare are the subject of a comprehensive prohibition and are included in an annex to this Statute, by an amendment in accordance with the relevant provisions set forth in articles 121 and 123;
      2. (xxi)  Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
      3. (xxii)  Committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, as defined in article 7, paragraph 2 (f), enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence also constituting a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions;
      4. (xxiii)  Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations;
      5. (xxiv)  Intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material, medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law;
      6. (xxv)  Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions;
      7. (xxvi)  Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into the national armed forces or using them to participate actively in hostilities.

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

      1. (i)  Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
      2. (ii)  Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
      3. (iii)  Taking of hostages;
      4. (iv)  The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all judicial guarantees which are generally recognized as indispensable.

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

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

      1. (i)  Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
      2. (ii)  Intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material, medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law;
      3. (iii)  Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;
      4. (iv)  Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives;
      5. (v)  Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault;
      6. (vi)  Committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, as defined in article 7, paragraph 2 (f), enforced sterilization, and any other form of sexual violence also constituting a serious violation of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions;
      7. (vii)  Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into armed forces or groups or using them to participate actively in hostilities;
      8. (viii)  Ordering the displacement of the civilian population for reasons related to the conflict, unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand;
      9. (ix)  Killing or wounding treacherously a combatant adversary;
      10. (x)  Declaring that no quarter will be given;
      11. (xi)  Subjecting persons who are in the power of another party to the conflict to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are neither justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his or her interest, and which cause death to or seriously endanger the health of such person or persons;
      12. (xii)  Destroying or seizing the property of an adversary unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of the conflict;
      13. (xiii)  Employing poison or poisoned weapons;
      14. (xiv)  Employing asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all analogous liquids, materials or devices;
      15. (xv)  Employing bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions.
      page16image1208
      (f) Paragraph 2 (e) applies to armed conflicts not of an international character and thus does not apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence or other acts of a similar nature. It applies to armed conflicts that take place in the territory of a State when there is protracted armed conflict between governmental authorities and organized armed groups or between such groups.3. Nothing in paragraph 2 (c) and (e) shall affect the responsibility of a Government to maintain or re-establish law and order in the State or to defend the unity and territorial integrity of the State, by all legitimate means.Article 8, 3
      Crime of aggression

      1. For the purpose of this Statute, “crime of aggression” means the planning, preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, of an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations.
      2. For the purpose of paragraph 1, “act of aggression” means the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations. Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, in accordance with United Nations General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974, qualify as an act of aggression:
        1. (a)  The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof;
        2. (b)  Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State;
        3. (c)  The blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State;
        4. (d)  An attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State;
        5. (e)  The use of armed forces of one State which are within the territory of another State with the agreement of the receiving State, in contravention of the conditions provided for in the agreement or any extension of their presence in such territory beyond the termination of the agreement;
        6. (f)  The action of a State in allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State;
        7. (g)  The sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to the acts listed above, or its substantial involvement therein.

Conclusion

Obama’s Administration, and Obama himself of course, clearly fall within the above categories (and more) for prosecution.  The ‘broad Left coalition’ that kept the risible Republicans out of the White House now must take to task the candidate it elected. We must call upon the US courts and international bodies, especially the ICC to set up a special US Criminal Tribunal similar to that for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

Tags , , , , , , ,
Categories Intellectuals and Ethics, Obama and International Law, The US Constitution
« Older Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.