make war crimes tribunals, not war

With respect to whose credibility may or may not be on the line, neither the Charter of the United Nations, the Geneva Protocol, nor the Chemical Weapons Convention seems to authorize a signatory to bombard another nation not immediately threatening it.

I don't see anybody else standing at podium upon podium advocating that course.



The Geneva Protocol (1925):

That the High Contracting Parties, so far as they are not already Parties to Treaties prohibiting such use, accept this prohibition (of the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices), agree to extend this prohibition to the use of bacteriological methods of warfare and agree to be bound as between themselves according to the terms of this declaration. 

Chemical Weapons Convention (1993), Article I:

Each State Party to this Convention undertakes never under any circumstances:
(a) To develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile or retain chemical weapons, or transfer, directly or indirectly, chemical weapons to anyone;
(b) To use chemical weapons;
(c) To engage in any military preparations to use chemical weapons;
(d) To assist, encourage or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Convention. 

Chemical Weapons Convention, Article XII:

3. In cases where serious damage to the object and purpose of this Convention may result from activities prohibited under this Convention, in particular by Article I, the Conference may recommend collective measures to States Parties in conformity with international law.
4. The Conference shall, in cases of particular gravity, bring the issue, including relevant information and conclusions, to the attention of the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Security Council.

The Charter of the United Nations, Article 2(4):

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. 

The Charter of the United Nations, Article 2(7):

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

(1) propagandolution (-dilution?)

[resentence] mumia

On April 26, the Court of Appeals for the Third U.S. Circuit held the death sentence of revolutionary journalist (and convicted murderer) Mumia Abu Jamal was obtained unconstitutionally, unanimously upholding that court's earlier determination, upon review directed by the U.S. Supreme Court, and reiterating its order that a new sentencing hearing be convened.

The Philadelphia district attorney says he will appeal the decision to the Supreme Court (again).

Catch up on this development (and the many other related actions pending in various courts -- fascinating pages of procedural history in the opinion linked above too!) with Democracy Now!'s April 27 edition, in which Amy Goodman interviews co-counsel Judith Ritter and columnist Linn Washington, or listen to Mumia's podcast, produced by Prison Radio.

(And, while you're over at Democracy Now!, check out Glenn Greenwald's views on the President of the United States's legally conclusory pronouncements concerning alleged wikileakingwhistleblower Bradley Manning, whose case has yet to be heard:

One of the cardinal rules of being a president is that you don’t decree private citizens guilty of crimes before they’ve been adjudicated of having been convicted of a crime. . . [comparison to Nixon statements during Manson trial, retracted under AG advisement] . . . John Mitchell knew that was inappropriate, that you can’t do that. . . . Here, it’s much worse for Obama to do that, because Bradley Manning is a member of the military under his command. The people who will decide his guilt are inferior officers to Obama as commander-in-chief. It’s an amazing amount of over and improper influence on the military process.

)

for pedestrians

suspicious fishes

dear norm

I ate some suspicious fishes
the other day down the way
and had to wait for a gracious
waitress to drive me home
after her shift by which time
I was done puking but only
beginning to see things and

listed the suspicious bumper
stickers all over the whales
we followed up the Whitehurst
freeway and along the Potomac
on the way to the Beltway
and beyond, writing them down
with melted licorice bics on
a compact disk with a mix of
my friend Mick’s schizoid music

(playing which the waitress
did not tolerate while driving,
and I didn’t need for suspicious
fish poison already on the brain).

don't blame me