spy vs. spy

an eventfull year, i will write a bit still, my last post i mentioned what an ordeal it is if there is a despise, a contempt for justice in the system we live in. it is still a depressing thought.

it can be reflected on almost anything that is happening, well happening, relevant and in the media. egypt and "tahrir!" basically a dispute about class justice and the violence of the uniformed side.

egypt post tahrir, pretty much the same dispute. a blogger in prison for years already and that is only the most outspoken tip of an iceberg of injustice.

syria? what other thing then a contempt for justice in the sense of 'human riots' is held against assad?

ow i am concerned. the situation became terribly muddy by now. the traditional thing the camel does to it's followers is happening, the closed doors, muslims only understand repression reasoning.

well it is not really the camel perhaps, but it is terrible. and what is happening?

the reaction of the west, including aljazeera is to shamelessly portray even pro assad rallys as demonstration, what should you still believe is riot here?

the reaction of the arab world, to send 'monitors' is in itself a quite phantasmagoral idea, generals, used to pacify warzones .. in luxurious cars talk to spokespeople of the interior ministry, ok it need to be done, so far so good, opposition jumps high and low. but the point is,

do i really believe something in the sense of "true justice" will be done by them? i don't even think they have the faintest to start an attempt. it need not be a lack of will. (1)

just a lack of justice.

so do i have that against anyone else in particular? the states, not just any states, also the usian states , that trademarker of liberty.

because obviously the proceedings against manning are finally(?) taking place after months of abuse of the person of bradley manning, reportedly to turn him against assange that is still and almost openly manipulated against by usian and other states representatives.

hardly dare to say it, but it is encouraging the english courts take the story serious, where will it end, i allways see the ship of justice strand on those cliffs of money and influence.

so, why not talk a bit more than i already have about this trial of the century that is going on, what is perhaps the most important trial so far of this century.

it is not i have no gossip..

the trial of bradley manning.

ok i know this, it has been documented that the department at what the preceding 'judge' (perhaps military person is way more appropriate) is working , (doj) , is bussy with proceedings against assange. all confidentially probably and 'way secret',

so the judge considered himself .. unbiased, now that would still be tested, in the longer term for an appeals hearing, and perhaps i should not be so pessimistic as to be opportune about that, what more is known is that this doj, department of justice, has been working at the case against bradley manning in person..

reportedly in the 'actual shaping of a plea bargain to be used against assange'.
and it means he is a hero, that despite solitary confinement and brutal treatment, that is officially regarded torture under human rights criteria including expressions of those united states in (the) americas in international diplomacy, including such as referred to the security counsil, ie. cases of war and peace, life and death on a scale and measure of international justice, he is the one person that did not turn into a traitor of anyone.

i saw a very fatty senator, he thought i(we?) would like him, for his smile. over manning i think, not a bad smile, but if you think that is where reliability is..

he said he didn't 'like' bradley manning, that he had only defended his rights to still be humanely treated, he didn't follow that up, wich would be a juridical common sense, with that it invalidated the proceedings, no he followed it up with talk about treason or so.

yeah, get in the picture for someone's rights, and when it matters be gladly chatting about in the world 'you don't like him' or whatever counts as his reason for being guilty. no that was a setup.

what i do love is to see daniel(?) elsberg struggle for him. elsberg, and it is actually the one glimmer of light in the whole case, is referred to as the "most comparable case in usian history".

his weaker statement is: ofcourse the material i relayed was more topical in a way. i think that is a bit weak. his release was about the vietnam war, and more to the point about decissions concerning in effect really millions of lives were made under circumstances that were almost criminal.

the difference is not that great, the 'secrecy' and 'millions of casualties' of these days centre around irak and the crusade against muslim lands, called 'war for terror'.

much more then, almost contrary to, the vietnam war it is an event that many nations share intimate ties and informations about. so it is not that eventfull that a wide scope of topics would be the kind of arrangement against all that confidential poking around and controlling other peoples lifes really.

people, the media for one, say: it changed the world, it is getting done with dictatorships', it finally emancipates many of the muslim nations a bit, perhaps that is only me;).

people in egypt, the occupants, the tahriri, expressed that, libyans did oftentimes and tunesians share all that intention. ok it is not done, but it started.

ellsberg was freed from prosecution, before the court martial, wich is what these hearings are referring to, so not all hope is lost.

i do not see the problem of the united states (ia), they say they want to raise the humanitarian standard of the operational realitys of this planet, manning gives the great hint that we really should and have a way to go. he is the personification of the real 'usian dream' the inspirational freedom and justice.

and personally, i think that is why he suffered in that service, even the guardian does not tell, (and it is wrong in a few cases, the reasoning of that judge eg. being what we are doing at the department is secret, so there exists no 'reasonable person knowing all circumstances' and as such he considers himself more reasonable than someone that would disagree to it.
i do not think it is reasonable, i very much assume he is part and parcel in the coming strategy around bradley manning's proceedings. just on instruction or from a selfassuredness based on vanity.)

even the guardian does not tell bradley manning tried to "whisttle blow" through the official channels about his findings, and btw. did you know the documents on his computer are not the same as those on wikileaks? it is a point the defence got on the table, so i suppose it is supposed to mean that thing it is supposed to mean.

in the public discourse the aformentioned official people state 'he just randomly with no reading passed them on', hmm but also that one of the evidences on his computer is a spreadsheet with the sipdis dbase. that pretty much means he had a specific look for each of them and may have served exaactly the reason he looked at them.

wich.. btw. was his job, and i think it was completely acceptable to hav it all on that pc.

neway, a lot of the hearing is behind closed doors, however not when that request is from the defence, who would not think he would become the victim of bias when he collects books about eg. reconstructional facial surgery on women and has a record troubled amongst things with him being gay.

so alltho the guardian suggests we should not look behind, i suggest bias is necessarilly superficial and not something worth that reference.

one more glitch of the guardian is when they seriously report some uniformed army 'jurist' instruction as 'explanation, and at that.. the whole proceedings are heavily covered with military attendees, infiltrated with them so to say. making that impression , purposedly ofcourse 'something is seriously going on'.

and not in the way they have with it, having less rights than even those from guatanamo, it is. they show off infiltration in public;)

the point is, when overhere, yet it is not the only instance for me that i had peeks into that kind of regulations, when you do that kind of work, 'intelligence' work, wich is basically spy's work etc. there are elaborate rules deciding , for the superiors or officers , and people responsible, if people are suited for the job, even if they are 'still' suited for the job.

the kind of work can be very stressfull and bearing. as a direct result of your researches life and death can be decided, perhaps has to be decided, you are in other cases a direct witness of not a few, but endless incidents that hardly credibly pass the 'rules of engagement' criteria.

lives of children, women, livelyhoods, animals, even meaningfull consequences in a far future, everything can be in the balance. that is why the regulations are rather strict.

and according to the spirit of those, in wich for example his taking a foetal stance, certainly also his whisttle blowing attempt that failed (and obviously not for only the best reasons), his being a loner in his teams, his bearing great repsonsibilitys, attacking a superior, and being adviced against beforehand should have been enough to ring the warning bells.

that the psychological symptoms of stress and dissociation, problems with loyalty etc. are so precisely known is there for a reason.

to protect that doubtfull priviliges of secrecy and undercover reality, and to protect the individual armyperson against the natural consequences of a great struggle of conscience.

here's the gossip, the mainstreaming dutch media repeat me, "(the great question is rather if they ever release him early (because would not that tell if the world has changed)".

yet without raising even a question about his conviction (let alone guilt(?)).

no unpleasant surprises for the sheeple? the general negative trending in tv comments, that is in so far i seen any, but i think the listening post on aljazeera has some..) bodes a similar preparation, and a specific spin, to do indeed that what the dutch media so casually assume.

i said it before, if it was not about people it would be rather funny. funny in the sense that arguments against so much what they hold against him in that mediacircus, are all to often easily found.

tried it a bit here.


(1) i do not think they have the theoretical underground to conceive a functional action model, i would almost hope ban ki moon provides some. not that it would suddenly help all the lack of justice , more that it might help peace prevail in syria without a bloody repression and the forthcoming prolongation of differences and pains.

ps. like i posed in the first weeks wikileaks became the hottest topic of 'news' in the sense of things people did not realise or know, it need not be true, this story.

it is not infeasible assange and bradley eg. are some sort of hoax. somehow i can't get away from the idea all those cables, and what is actually this stash of a 4 million customer confidential hobby magazine, call it for usian armed forces, pentagon, perhaps even nato secret service, what you like, ambassadorial peptalks, gossips and indeed reports, that however trended to be known from public releases in the context. admittedly not the kind of source to allow the oversight you want,
releases in these many contexts.

nevertheless if they are supposed to encourage the army servants of the corporations, they would be supposed to encourage a lot of it's clients. i never heard wikileaks released major detail about say turkey, syria even, egypt , libya or any other nation i know has recently been attempting to release confidential documents, yet it is plausible many have been send.

that would give the pentagon a lot of everything: confidential informations on plenty foreign gov's corporations etc. and the opportunity to donn every kind of scare about whisttle blowing.

plus a heap of what is basically a sales talk under the attention of people that consider themselves critical and often spend a lot of effort to find informations on plenty of the topics , in wich so many nations and people outside the united states stand stereotyped and in not to positive light.

that, i already told you, however should not be a surprise as it was already confirmed in the media when the topic was running in diplomacy, and actually ofcourse sometimes shortly thereafter.

one reason for that is that the probable briefers of the corporate media, are connected to those sipdis releases. in cases that is sure as

ps2: that roommate that did not want to talk to him i suppose also counts, it shows there was little appreciation for him, and raises the question if he asked and was denied (..) a change in that.

The long march

If i don't write here i will clog alJazeera with comments. Not that i would be unique in doing that, some people severely exploit the option to be heard by posting repeatedly, even to the extend they apparently feature a bad memory even for their own words.

Aljazeera discussions are fascinating for their topic choices, then.. madagaskar is not one..
One could ask why, but for me it's obvious, african leaders fear the solidity of their pluche seats diminish, and actually so do nato leaders. How childish, all these people knowing hardly anything of madagaskar holding up advances for fear of their own positions.

k, on with the good news. The UN finally found wisdom on drugs by looking at the statistics instead the pope's, establishments and the mullah's.

It means there is some hope for at least those destutes in our society for a life with some human quality. This is in the long run very promising, because it remains an option that society's will find out you need to work at the causes.

The causes are social, and the drugs item is not the only case where prejudice long overruled righteousness. So emancipation of drugs might just mean emancipation of the precarious, emancipation of crime even.

Altho the 'penal systems' are still in need of major make-overs, it could be a start.
Since complete regulation will be impossible we probably head to a situation where drugs related crime becomes comparative to youth related crime. In the end, if you bore people to death they will do wicked things , and if you don't allow them to party they still will.

Myself i am not so convinced of crime. Money is a resource, if one judges crimes for money, the bigger money the bigger crime. The reality is quite the opposite, the smaller the money involved in the crime, the relatively higher the punishments.

rich people, (look at eg. the one who attempted to kill ronald reagan) come off easily. Fraud that counts into the millions is considered a gentlemans right, yet poor people are locked up for years over a few 1000's.

The control on poor people's finances is very close to 100%, you can't just emigrate and put the loot of a bankrobbing on a foreign account if you are poor, but you can if you are rich, so the solution is plain. Control the rich as well.

unfortunately the tools of control are in the hands of the rich, so it never materialised and will probably never happen. Shimmery constructs called 'legal formulas' will remain in place to protect the establishment if the people don't act up.

warcrimes

before i start an article called wo3 i feel inspired to write about war crimes.
In some ways i have been thinking over it already for a long time, and now the situation we face a court procedure between russia and georgia serves as an example.

Not in the last place because the scale is handsome, comprehendable. An example as Irak where different bombing campaigns immediatly killed over a million ppl. (an estimate but not an irrealist one) ofcourse is more sensitive. Do you, like many usians, perceive the fake WMD as *the* excuse, then the guilty ones walk completely free, and are still occupying the iraki nation. So the example may be better, but harder to explain and validate.

I do not choose the georgian problem because it is of the bigger i can think of, only because the determination russia shows for justice in the case , may proof me still right later, wich is a thing you could not expect eg. maliki or karzai hold the greatest interests in.

So i choose the subject of georgia because i think it has the same relevance to the russians, an action for transparance, good international relations worldwide, and about the responsibility of *all* nations to abide to similar laws.

Ofcourse Russia could that way show her system of democracy is not necessarilly less effective or representative then the european or usian. That is sth. i am rili curious after myself. Altho i am quite aware the socalled "democracy's" actually don't hold up to direct representation. (it could be hard to do worse)
however this will not be the subject of the procedures, the subject will be measure and proof of warcrimes.

measure and proof of warcrimes.

Basically the definition of warcrimes has two objectives, the first is to prosecute great "evil": inhumane deeds, events. Examples are: torture, ethnic violence in a context of armed conflict, elimination of people and groups of people, the targetting of civilians, neglicence towards victims, etc. etc. It is almost easier to think of a new warcrime then to sum it up.(the elimination of whole army's of defenceless enemy's i think is also one the nato can be blamed for)

Prevailing brutality and violence, is the second objective. That means single incidents can comprise warcrimes, it would be brutal if torture was okay if you did it to one or two people only.

A result is the use of the term warcrimes is still complicated, and perhaps that is why the different party's have been so eager to grossly implicate another so often.

The answer to all this is integrity. The use of singular and identic measure to crime. That is not always precisely the same as identical punishment perhaps, it is about keeping things in a context, having a future possibillity to compare, and doing justice to victims.

This integrity will not exist without transparance, openess, unbiased reporting, plain and fair numbers, and equally thorough checks on all party's involved.

It is simply so that each participant taking part in censoring is indicated, and lost all credibility to judge or accuse. There should be no ground for censoring if there is no implications of guilt of the censor.

As such, all major party's in these kinds of procedures are suspect(1), it appears to always be the nato, europe or usa that get's their enemy's filed for warcrimes and crimes against humanity. Meanwhile each of these applies censorship, in every form.

That means the nations and alliances have no credibility, even a nation as russia with a better record of mutuality in the accusations, can for the performace of justice only be labelled as partial. (ie. it will underestimate it's lethality and may overestimate the impropriateness of the reaction)
To be straight one will always have to keep comparing with the other, georgia and her accomplices (if any, but there is: the nato is a military partner that has eg. been arming georgia with more lethal weaponry ).

in this case the nato shows to have no credibility at all. The media are and have been stricly censored to show an anti russian picture that does no right to the situation and leaves us wondering what else happens evrywhere else in the world.

However fortunately there is a theoretical solution to this, the independence and power of justice.

Paralel there are theoretical solutions to the violent models that are now implemented. Usia even manages to be proud to be a "counterinsurgent" army.
"counter insurgent" means it targets a population or at least a significant part of it persee. A warcrime, and action that will provocate many smaller or bigger warcrimes. in this example usia provocates them, and in many cases the basic principle of justice dedicates that the reaction bears an element of selfdefence.

Provocation does not need to be violent, it can come in ways of discrimination, and (quite common) arming up, or tightening repressive measures, and probably in many more. However in terms of justice, and terms of warcrimes, crimes against humanity and the likes, ofcourse no provocation at all exists in wich the element of violence is not represented.

See what we are getting at is that a term that doesn't directly connotate to "warcrimes" namely the term violence, has absolute implications. Then justice can only be done when violence is measured accordingly.

There must be a great degree of certainty and objectivity , that is mutuality , transparance, a horrible, nearly undoable task. From that it follows the measures should be quite high, bombs on a town eg. that is inhabited, like tshikivalli or baghdad immediatly are a degree of 'warcriminal violence' , that would justify the other party so much atrocity and represaille in legal terms of selfdefence, that a definition of warcrime cannot come without a direct verdict against such incidents.

Only if these cases are solved, these matters settled, what follows could be considered a warcrime of the kind that can be complained about by the other party, or anyone. (besides ofcourse on humanist, humane ground) (2)

do you understand me?

warcrimes yet (possibly) perpetrated through, in and about georgia

in the practical case of georgia, from my meagre informations i can't judge evrything, but i can give examples. Ofcourse they will be contrive.(complicated,dense and interactive)

one should start with the beginning. For me it is guesswork, perhaps for example agreements from CIS or elsewhere must be counted. When these have military implications, or implications for the status wich of ethnic groups (ossetians, abchazians), wich ofcourse there are it must be taken in account in terms of being a incident with "violent ("war"criminal) implications.

long story short, let's weigh this apropriatly, that is proportionally, to measures of mutuality and reasonability (not to mention human rights).

human rights however need fixes to. The "democracy" pretence of freedom eg. should not be the measure, becus it is actually a very desinformed and biased project.
like warcrimes cannot be fixed without transparance, questions and accusations of human rights can not.

dr.Rice 's statements that russia used disproportional violence for example are a warcrime. There is no transparance, no evidence, no objectivity, not even free media,
her statement is then a very violent one, a usual judge would punish a perpetrator that accuses the victim harder.

To her luck i must add, she is not the only one. Bush for example had no better to offer. I just don't think bush is a relevant person. Heh, miss Rice has everything,
including an amazingly valuable psotion as "most succesfull cuddle negroe in the world" a possible all times champion. I certainly allow her the honour.

Another detail here is that i don't know how she is used or abused in that position,
there might be elements of racism etc. that she can't check and compromise her role beyond herself. champion cuddle negroe not for no reason.

Obama is not a cuddle negroe, he is a horde runner on a track that is better for your legs then the sport itself.
cheers O.! sorry i can't endure Condi's escalations.

k so these are only examples. diplomatical and political abuse of the unclarity about what consists provocation, intimidation, escalation, witnessing set aside, we could still clinically sum up the directly to the ground related events that give real reason for thought.

there is the long history of georgian interference with abchazia and ossetia, the peaceforces, some russian interests in containing georgia, saaksvillis persona,

saaksviile is for one thing indicated because he uses a populist rhetoric.
He is also indicated since he didn't manage to give any relativation in any case to a russian behaviour that was modest, untill he was regarded for all his lies.

That's why from the very start saaksvilli is suspect. What he does to the georgians compares to what the taliban wants, to what the serbians stand accused of, to what the croatians did, (make it a do usually, when they got away with it), it relates to what saddam held up to his people, its the way usa and iran control their populace,
pakistani politics suffers heavily from the phenomenon, sarkozy used it, it is something that has an impact on less developed nations (but not so much the most marginal people) very strongly often, it's what hitler did:

Nationalism.


on a sidenote russia labels his digressions from humane as on par with H. and stalin.
No smoke without a fire? in the very least there must be something against him they hold don't you think?
in the first phases of the war the georgian offensive was genocidal and ethnic clensing, the target was to drive as many south ossetians as possible into russia, and eliminate any resistance, the means where the ones of the nato offensive against baghdad probably more modern, albeit probably supplemented by older material.

the (nationalist) georgian army has a sinister history of operations against civilians , an element of nationalism is that it prohibits the development of moderate views on surrounding not completely advantegeous ethnic groups.

as such it apparently didn't improve, the methods were genocidal because completely disproportionate violence was applied (miss Rice?), because civil concentrations were targeted, 10 villages completely ruined, the main city bombarded over at least a week, the occupation of that city prolonged, (the russian were very quick with telling georgia to pull back), and after that there was no real cooperation to the ceasefire for about a week from the georgian political side, (sorry if we tried to save soldiers lifes), still now saaksvilli routinely falls back into acquisations.

I think what should be clear is that this is the incident, and that these complaints should have taken seriously in the nato=world. Not in the media, and not by the political representatives. Obviously the media are handed several kinds of restrictions and requirements, very possibly there is a permanent censoring going on,
the care with what journalists express what they still can suggests this.

seriously in terms of warcrimes and genocide. The only point that could be made from the nato side was a discussion about proportion.

when is something a genocide? does 2000 people and complete ethnic cleansing of 100000 people suffice, didn't abchazia suffice?
do military victims count somehow?

apparently these questions of proportion are the ones the nato does not want to hold up in the eyes of the world..

not so strange, arming nations, blasting them back to the stone age, causing every afghan and large parts of pakistan to flee, the relevance of modern arms and the development of bases around russia (and other nations) in fact over the whole world,
wouldn't stand the light of truth.

Nothing russia can be accused of the nato hasn't done, and over plenty things that georgia did the nato did punish or prosecute, serbians, russia or iraki's with international courts.

So i think the russians are out to hand the world a chance for peace again, if the world listens up we can start to get some definition and definite agreement on the
what's and whatsnot's of warcrimes and escalation.

(finally seriously start to disarm the world)

(1) also the courts of justice
(2) unless proportion would level the victim would remain justified to a much greater extend in any action then the agressor wich in the case of the usa has not happened since their own civil war. russia what is now and as an inheritant of the soviet unions moral ground can either just be considered (self) defensive or a relative ground for blame, relative to georgia here, but also relative to accepting a unipolair world through her history. Like i said these measures would become very contrive.

Conclusion:
With the current methods and practice it is impossible to objectively apply value to warcrimes, they should be thoroughly revaluated and appreciated in their diplomatical and political contexts , because there lays much of the responsability.
The dilligent system , the delegate justice that deals an unipolair quality, must be objectified, that can only happen through transparance, including a historic perspective, a freedom of press (in the sense of reporting, not misrepresenting),
an unfreedom of media to misrepresent even. Wich is "free" media's juridical definition: the duty to report every truth, not just some or something else.
to allow extrajuridical exposes there must be transparant and reciprocal proof.
The courts need to become objective, a working model could be to involve judges and jurists from exactly these involved matches, a touchy subject for justice itself.

It's very relevant that not only the constitution but also the proceedings and procedure of the courts need to apply transparance and reciprocity.

There will be so many guilty partys and persons, states might consider to stop armsraces and wars. The usa/nato and her closer allies, must reconsider their status in terms of warcrime. As a result of that their validity in a discussion of geopolitical determination like georgia's appears moot.