30.7.04

taken from the place linked in the pictures. so (c) them and their information.





"NO MORE DEATHS" VOLUNTEER WORKSHOP REVEALS TACTICS TO ASSIST ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS

By: Ursulina Vargas and Chris Simcox


"No More Deaths" an illegal immigrant assistance group has set up an aid camp only a few hundred feet within the boundary of the United States border with Mexico. The group operates on a "don’t ask, don’t tell" philosophy to provide water and transportation for illegals to a Tucson safe house known as the South Side Presbyterian Church (home of Humane Borders).


No More Deaths, a volunteer coalition composed of advocacy groups whose work is to support illegal immigrants with water and medical aid, recently held a meeting in Bisbee to train volunteers in dealing with both law enforcement and illegal border crossers they refer to as "guests".
The primary speaker for the workshop was Margo Cowan, who has defended undocumented people for 35 years. Cowan was indicted in 1972 by the Nixon Administration on 52 counts of aiding and abetting illegal aliens; the charges were dropped by former President Jimmy Carter. Cowan currently serves as legal counsel to Rep. Raul Grijalva.
Lupe Castillo and Kat Rodriguez of Derechos Humanos were also in attendance to educate the 30 volunteers, many of whom traveled from out of state to attend the training meeting. Derechos Humanos openly states that their goal is to open the borders and abolish the Border Patrol.
The stated purpose of No More Deaths (No Mas Muertes) is to provide humanitarian aid for undocumented migrants; to prevent their deaths in the desert, and to do so in a non-violent way, while not cooperating with Border Patrol. As one participant said, "It’s not my job to call Border Patrol-why should I interfere with their destiny?"
No More Deaths members, in cooperation with church groups, provide food and water for immigrants being detained by Border Patrol, and also in the "field" working out of mobile RV aid stations set up in Arivaca and Douglas, Arizona.
Cowan stated that for every immigrant death reported by authorities, there are 10 more that go unreported. There are no statistical facts from U.S. local, state or federal data or Mexican consulates to verify whether the statement is true. Cowan and others at the meeting routinely referred to illegal aliens as "our children." Cowan said it is important to set up aid stations in Cochise County because the Tucson Border Patrol sector is now focusing attention on the most active crossing points. Because Border Patrol estimates 5 (illegal aliens) come through for every one caught, Cowan is concerned for the safety of the 5 million "friends," as she refers to illegal immigrants, who have illegally entered the United States.
She said the rate of recidivism (those who’ve crossed, been caught, and re-crossed) is so low as to be described as "statistically insignificant" by the Border Patrol. And, although the Border Patrol claims that they have caught more felons, Cowan stated that is just a label that can be applied to undocumented aliens depending upon how many times they’ve been apprehended while crossing the border. Since October 1, 2003, the start of their fiscal year, Border Patrol reports that as of July 15, agents have apprehended 8,283 convicted felons attempting to cross back into the United States after being deported. If Border Patrol is catching only one in five, that means that up to 20,000 convicted criminals could have entered the country in that same period.
Cowan boasted that with 2 to 3 million "guests" coming through every year, the U.S. Attorney can’t prosecute every one, so they decide to go after the coyotes. As a result of rapes, robberies and other abuses at the hands of smugglers, groups of undocumented migrants are less likely to rely on coyotes to guide them across the border. Often a group of "guests" will appoint a person (who has crossed and been caught) to be their leader, and each person will give him $50 or so for taking the responsibility as the guide if the group is caught.
Cowan told the group of new volunteers that they cannot aid or abet aliens in furtherance of their illegal status in the U.S. How they get away with bending but not breaking the law, is under much scrutiny by Border Patrol and other federal law enforcement agencies who are beginning to keep an eye on the groups who provide aid to illegal aliens. Cowan says ignorance is the key. "All you have to do, the most important thing is, to not ask if they are illegal or where they are from!" Cowan says if they are in the United States, then if volunteers don’t ask, they can assume they are helping citizens. Many of their aid stations are only a few hundred feet from the border fence. The same is true of water stations set up on BLM land by the Tucson based Humane Borders group.
No More Deaths volunteers, can, and will transport possible illegal aliens to receive medical help. Cowan’s strategy, "You can ask them questions to see how they are feeling, and observe their condition. There is a list of approved doctors and nurses that a volunteer can call to get an OK to take the migrant, for a medical evaluation." Cowan said as long as you have permission from one of the doctors or registered nurses in the "friends network" then you can legally transport them. The group claims to have a list of such doctors that volunteers can call to get permission to transport the "guests".
A volunteer suggested putting magnetized Samaritan signs with a red cross on the cars when approaching undocumented migrants or when transporting them, so that everyone will know their mission is a medically necessary or humanitarian effort. Another volunteer said that doctors he had worked with in the organization had said that if a person is crossing the desert in the summer, regardless of whether or not they look sick, they all need medical help. If anyone in the "friends network" were stopped by Border Patrol, while transporting aliens in their cars, volunteers were instructed to identify themselves as being with No More Deaths, since there is "an umbrella of political protection" associated with the group. And they should also say that they were taking the aliens for a medical evaluation in Tucson at St. Mary’s Hospital or for respite at South Side Presbyterian Church (home of Humane Borders).
According to Cowan, "we are transparent," so there is no attempt to conceal undocumented migrants by making them lie down in the back seat or hide in the trunk.
Someone asked, "Is it legal to take them home with you, like if you need to pick up the list of doctors and nurses you need to take them to?" Cowan said, "Yes, but you must take them there," (to medical help).
"If you meet a group and some are in distress, and others are not, you cannot transport those who are OK," Cowan answered. "We encourage people who want to (transport those who are OK) to do that, on their own, but we don’t want to get in trouble, so we don’t do that as a group, under the name No More Deaths," Cowan warned the volunteers.
Another question that arose was if a "friend" doctor recommended a 48-hour respite, could the volunteer take the aliens home, let them take a shower, and then let them use the phone at the end of that period of time? Cowan said that although a church designated as a respite center was preferable, it was all right to do this, but if the alien calls out on your home phone, you want to make sure your ID is blocked, as you do not want coyotes knowing your number.
Kat Rodriguez asked, "How do they get from your home to the bus, or other transportation (if you are not allowed to transport them)?" Others also wanted to know if it was legal to give them some money for their trip.
Cowan responded: "Almost everyone coming over has family here who will come and pick them up. Public transportation is just too dangerous." Other volunteers were still puzzled and asked further about how to aid aliens in resuming their journey after a medically recommended respite. Then Cowan added, "This is just what No More Deaths recommends legally; other friends do other pieces." No More Deaths official policy is "We can’t do this piece-other people do this piece, just in case there are some government spies here. It’s important for us to do everything to keep the criminal enterprise part away from our humanitarian efforts," Cowan explained. The volunteers smiled and laughed.
Later Cowan added that most volunteers in the group might know someone who would "do the other piece" but there is no organized group to perform transportation functions for the "guests". Cowan warned the volunteers that if they are detained for any reason by law enforcement while transporting an alien, the case must be turned over to the state’s attorney, whose decision it will be either to dismiss it or to prosecute.
The group debated if it was legal to give "guests" a map, so that they knew where they were and how to get to where they were going.
Cowan said that it was a legal gray area; and "we are concerned that people may misinterpret them (the maps) and they won’t be helpful."
Others in the group shared stories about Border Patrol agents who did not want them to give water or food to alien detainees in the field, and they were assured that it is perfectly legal to give them the "Know Your Rights" card, and to share food and water with them. Cowan said those agents who are resistant to No More Deaths volunteers’ help are: "young agents, scared to death, based on lack of knowledge, substantively and culturally, of whom they are dealing with."
Kat Rodriguez said, "God forbid you feed a felon."
The group discussed the necessity of getting a written commitment from local law enforcement (cities, county sheriffs) to not enforce immigration law, since only the Department of Homeland Security has the authority to inquire into a person’s legal status in this country.
As far as the Border Patrol is concerned, they have no authority over you while you are on private property, and that includes churches that may be used for respites.
One of the speakers claimed that there were no kitchens in the detention facilities, and sometimes people there said they had not been fed for 48 hours. She wanted to know if the group cared to organize an effort to bring a mobile kitchen to the incarceration facility to feed the "guests". Toward the end of the meeting, Lupe Castillo, a volunteer coordinator added, "Let’s not get so wrapped up in humanitarian aid that we forget our principle effort is in changing border and immigration policy."

27.7.04

The International Criminal Court, proudly brought to you by the United Nations.

What crimes will the Court try?

The Court has a mandate to try individuals rather than States and to hold them accountable for the most serious crimes of concern to the international community - genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, and, eventually, the crime of aggression. A common misperception is that the Court will be able to try those accused of having committed such crimes in the past, but this is not the case. The Court will have jurisdiction only over crimes committed after 1 July 2002, when the Statute entered into force. Genocideis defined as a list of prohibited acts, such as killing or causing serious harm, committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. As set out in the Statute, crimes against humanity include crimes such as the extermination of civilians, enslavement, torture, rape, forced pregnancy, persecution on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious or gender grounds, and enforced disappearances - but only when they are part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population. The "widespread or systematic" qualification for crimes against humanity is very important, as it provides a higher threshold, requiring a particular magnitude and/or scope before a crime qualifies for the Court's jurisdiction. This differentiates random acts of violence - such as rape, murder, or even torture - that could be carried out, perhaps even by soldiers in uniform, but which may not actually qualify as crimes against humanity. War crimes include grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and other serious violations of the laws and customs that can be applied in international armed conflict, and in armed conflict "not of an international character", as listed in the Statute, when they are committed as part of a plan or policy or on a large scale.

What about aggression? Isn't it in the Statute?


Aggression has been included as a crime within the Court's jurisdiction. But first, the States Parties must adopt an agreement setting out two things: a definition of aggression, which has so far proven difficult, and the conditions under which the Court could exercise its jurisdiction. Several proposals have been considered. Some countries feel that, in line with the UN Charter and the mandate it gives to the Security Council, only the Council has the authority to find that an act of aggression has occurred. If this is agreed, then such a finding by the Council would be required before the Court itself could take any action. Other countries feel that such authority should not be limited to the Security Council. There are proposals under consideration that would give that role to the General Assembly or to the International Court of Justice, if an accusation of aggression were made and the Security Council did not act within a certain time. In September 2002, the Assembly of States Parties to the Court established a special working group, open to all States, to elaborate proposals for a provision on aggression.

What about terrorism and drug trafficking?

In Rome, there was significant interest in including terrorism in the Court's mandate, but it was decided not to do so. Today, in addition to various treaties prohibiting many specific acts of terrorism, and in the aftermath of 11 September 2001, the Member States of the UN have undertaken the drafting of a comprehensive convention against terrorism. At a future review conference, if the States Parties so decide, the crime of terrorism could be added to the Court's jurisdiction.

It was the interest of a Member State (Trinidad and Tobago) in establishing an international court to prosecute crimes of drug trafficking that revitalized the process culminating in the establishment of the International Criminal Court. During the negotiations in Rome, delegations realized that, because of the magnitude of the problem of drug trafficking, to include it in the Court's mandate, with the investigations that would be required, would very likely result in the Court's limited resources quickly being overwhelmed. But drug trafficking could also be added in a future review conference.

---
what's that about? comprehensive convention? future review conference?

26.7.04

google searches reveal some interesting history, hmm?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html
---
Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated sixteen United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) designed to ensure that Iraq does not pose a threat to international peace and security. In addition to these repeated violations, he has tried, over the past decade, to circumvent UN economic sanctions against Iraq, which are reflected in a number of other resolutions. As noted in the resolutions, Saddam Hussein was required to fulfill many obligations beyond the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Specifically, Saddam Hussein was required to, among other things: allow international weapons inspectors to oversee the destruction of his weapons of mass destruction; not develop new weapons of mass destruction; destroy all of his ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers; stop support for terrorism and prevent terrorist organizations from operating within Iraq; help account for missing Kuwaitis and other individuals; return stolen Kuwaiti property and bear financial liability for damage from the Gulf War; and he was required to end his repression of the Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated each of the following resolutions:

UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990

* Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait) "and all subsequent relevant resolutions."

* Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."

UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991

* Iraq must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War.

* Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.

* Iraq must accept liability under international law for damages from its illegal invasion of Kuwait.

UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991

* Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."

* Iraq must "unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material" or any research, development or manufacturing facilities.

* Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities."

* Iraq must not "use, develop, construct or acquire" any weapons of mass destruction.

* Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

* Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs and mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify elimination of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.

* Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.

* Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.

* Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis and others.

* Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.

UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991

* "Condemns" repression of Iraqi civilian population, "the consequences of which threaten international peace and security."

* Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population.

* Iraq must allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations to those in need of assistance.

UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991

* "Condemns" Iraq's "serious violation" of UNSCR 687.

* "Further condemns" Iraq's noncompliance with IAEA and its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

* Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security Council deems Iraq in full compliance.

* Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.

* Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

* Iraq must cease attempts to conceal or move weapons of mass destruction, and related materials and facilities.

* Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors to conduct inspection flights throughout Iraq.

* Iraq must provide transportation, medical and logistical support for UN and IAEA inspectors.

UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991

* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors.

UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994

* "Condemns" Iraq's recent military deployments toward Kuwait.

* Iraq must not utilize its military or other forces in a hostile manner to threaten its neighbors or UN operations in Iraq.

* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors.

* Iraq must not enhance its military capability in southern Iraq.

UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996

* Iraq must report shipments of dual-use items related to weapons of mass destruction to the UN and IAEA.

* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996

* "Deplores" Iraq's refusal to allow access to UN inspectors and Iraq's "clear violations" of previous UN resolutions.

* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997

* "Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "clear and flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.

* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

* Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.

UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997

* "Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.

* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

* Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.

UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997

* "Condemns the continued violations by Iraq" of previous UN resolutions, including its "implicit threat to the safety of" aircraft operated by UN inspectors and its tampering with UN inspector monitoring equipment.

* Reaffirms Iraq's responsibility to ensure the safety of UN inspectors.

* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998

* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the "severest consequences for Iraq."

UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998

* "Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend cooperation with" UN and IAEA inspectors, which constitutes "a totally unacceptable contravention" of its obligations under UNSCR 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.

* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors, and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998

* "Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation" with UN inspectors as "a flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.

* Iraq must provide "immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspectors.

UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999

* Created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace previous weapon inspection team (UNSCOM).

* Iraq must allow UNMOVIC "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access" to Iraqi officials and facilities.

* Iraq must fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War prisoners.

* Calls on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies to its people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without discrimination.

Additional UN Security Council Statements

In addition to the legally binding UNSCRs, the UN Security Council has also issued at least 30 statements from the President of the UN Security Council regarding Saddam Hussein's continued violations of UNSCRs. The list of statements includes:

* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 28, 1991
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 5, 1992
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 19, 1992
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 28, 1992
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 6, 1992
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 11, 1992
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 12, 1992
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, April 10, 1992
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 17, 1992
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, July 6, 1992
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, September 2, 1992
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 23, 1992
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 24, 1992
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 8, 1993
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 11, 1993
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 18, 1993
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 28, 1993
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 23, 1993
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, October 8, 1994
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 19, 1996
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 14, 1996
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, August 23, 1996
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 30, 1996
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 13, 1997
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, October 29, 1997
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 13, 1997
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 3, 1997
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 22, 1997
* UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 14, 1998

when all gets put down on monitor, it is significant. take away what you want from this.

tonight at the dnc, bill clinton speaks of america uniting with 'the world' on the war on terror. i look at the above as a record of what happens when the world unites against terrorism. lots of talk, no action.

25.7.04

teresa heinz-kerry is un-american.

- she lied about the use of the word to a reporter
- she then told the reporter to go shove it after lunging towards him

is this where i supposed to go and compare this to dick cheney?

one problem with that. patrick leahy deserved to be told to go f himself, because he's a moron. what is it with the northeastern part of the country, at least the politicians and their wives?

boston has become a total police state this week. how i feel for the people just trying to live their lives in that state. new york won't be any better for the rnc, but the dimwits will use that and say that it's all the republicans fault.


screw partisan politics, elect real leaders : mccain-lieberman 2004 : help really save america.

23.7.04

Terror Alert Level

today's terror alert level

Terror Levels

19.7.04

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Jimmy Carter, Mikhail Gorbachev, the American Medical Association and 48 nations are among those lobbying the Supreme Court to end the execution of killers who committed their crimes before age 18.

The United States is among only a handful of nations that allow the practice. The high court will reconsider this fall whether such executions are constitutional.

A collection of death penalty opponents on Monday planned to challenge the practice.

a collection of out-of touch dimwits don't realize the impending population crisis that is coming.

"By continuing to execute child offenders in violation of international norms, the United States is not just leaving itself open to charges of hypocrisy, but is also endangering the rights of many around the world," said the filing on behalf of Nobel Peace Prize winners, including former President Carter and former Soviet President Gorbachev.

in another attempt to justify the argument that there is not a population problem, the world turns and bashes the united states for killing killers.

"Countries whose human rights records are criticized by the United States have no incentive to improve their records when the United States fails to meet the most fundamental, baseline standards," it said.

what fundamental baseline standards are these? the united states criticizes other countries for slave labor, not killing killers, there is a difference.

The 25-nation European Union, plus Mexico, Canada and other nations argued that execution of juvenile killers "violates widely accepted human rights norms and the minimum standards of human rights set forth by the United Nations."

aha! widely accepted norms and minimum standards set forth by the UNITED NATIONS?! i call credibility gap. this wouldn't happen to be the same united nations that always gets to have it both ways, would it? the same united nations that on one hand tries to help children of the world by telling them to make more, then on the other funnels money through a bogus aid program to a regime practicing genocide and sponsoring terrorism? so we should listen to a bunch of socialist eurotrash, mexico, a nation which costs our nation 5 billion per year to subsidize their citizens on our lands, and canada, who have no defense besides us?

Mexico noted separately that three of the 73 current death row inmates condemned for killings that took place before they were 18 are Mexican nationals.

and 700 million dollars was spent in california alone housing mexican nationals who came to the united states and committed crimes. where is that mentioned in this story? i say kill the three, and dump their lifeless carcasses on the steps of mr. fox's house of corruption. to hell with the mexican government and their policies. nevermind armando garcia and the others like him killing americans in america, only to flee home to no death penalty mexico. where's that mentioned?

The American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association and other medical and mental health groups also told the court they oppose execution of teen killers, as did the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

and it is in their best interests to say so. the AMA and APA, for the lifelong profits off the healthcare and 'well being'of the inmates, paid for by the people that decide it was in their best interest to take this person and put them there. and the catholic church because father badtouch needs more sheep to fleece.

Diplomats including former undersecretary of state Thomas Pickering and former ambassador to France Felix Rohatyn argued that growing international consensus against such executions leaves the U.S. diplomatically isolated.

diplomats? mr. pickering, this is why your ass wasn't THE secretary of state, merely a useless overpaid underling riding the coattails of the clinton administration. and a former ambassador to france? you mean the country that got blowed up in 1995 by algerian terrorists and now happily houses them for life in a prison?
there's a nation with resolve who should be listened to. france, the country where the people spit on lance armstrong for winning their bicycle race 5 times and will win an unprecendented sixth? how's that for diplomacy. and nice use of the vague 'growing international consensus' statement, as if that means anything other than nothing.

The United States executed more young killers than the rest of the world combined between 1990 and 2003, the diplomats' filing said.

no, i believe that honor goes to yasser arafat, and his brainwashed people. oh wait, you mean state executions, not state-sponsored, right?

In the past four years, only five nations have executed juveniles, the diplomats said: Congo, China, Iran, Pakistan and the United States.

so that means that pakistan, iran, china, united states and congo all understand that a killer can't be reformed. anything else?

"In no other area of human rights does the United States consider these nations to be our equals," the filing said.

and america is evil too, yes? just ask 'the world'. so they know all about human rights and are going to tell us how it's done.

Two friend-of-the-court briefs filed earlier support continuation of the practice.

make that three. i am a friend of a court that kills killers, regardless of age. i fully support continuation of the practice.

"(Our) experience strongly indicates that a bright-line rule categorically exempting 16- and 17-year-olds from the death penalty -- no matter how elaborate the plot, how sinister the killing, or how sophisticated the cover up -- would be arbitrary at best and downright perverse at worst," lawyers for Alabama, Delaware, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and Virginia told the court.

so in other words, these lawyers didn't say a damn thing, other than 'we think you should let killers walk among us because the bright-line rule indicates they won't kill again. and if they do kill again, we make money from it, so we're for it'.

Those states are among 19 that allow execution of killers who were 16 or 17 at the time of the crime. Not all states that allow the death penalty apply it to underage killers, and no state allows the execution of those who were younger than 16 at the time of the crime.

well that needs some reworking. as if there weren't 12-13 year olds doing drive-bys to get into their little street gang. and where is the accountability of the parents?

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case from Missouri, where the state Supreme Court declared juvenile executions unconstitutional last year.

and until something happens, this is hearsay.

Christopher Simmons was 17 when he and an accomplice broke into the Fenton, Missouri, home of Shirley Crook in 1993, then bound her with tape, electrical wire and the belt from her bathrobe and pushed her off a railroad bridge to drown.

Prosecutors said Simmons told teenage friends that they would get away with it because of their ages.

i guess that intent and motive to kill all stop when people turn 18? how many more innocent people like this shirley crook must die before we kill the youth that kill?

The liberal wing of the nine-justice Supreme Court is already on record supporting 18 as the minimum age of eligibility for the death penalty. Those four justices took an extraordinary step in the fall of 2002, signing a dissent in an appeal by a death row inmate that called it "shameful" to execute juvenile killers.

four of nine is not a majority. i only hope that some 14 year old butchers up their grandchildren, just so they can sit on their laurels and be proudof their decision to let the killer live. liberal wing? this is not a partisan issue, try telling that to the AP. dumbasses. more like stupid irrational wing. nothing to do with the (d) or the (r) next to the name,

"The practice of executing such offenders is a relic of the past and is inconsistent with evolving standards of decency in a civilized society," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote then. He was joined by Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

decency? what's that subjective word about? is this the same decency that the FCC feels is their right to mandate upon, trampling the first amendment? did i miss the bill of rights amendment entitling the youth to kill with no remorse nor fear of capital punishment? these jackasses are relics of the past for thinking that civilized society allows youth a free pass when they kill someone. and their irrational belief systems will cripple the court systems until the great day that they are no longer able to serve, meaning they die.

The issue turns on the Constitution's ban on "cruel and unusual punishments," and is similar in many ways to the question of whether mentally retarded killers can be executed for their crime. The Supreme Court banned that practice in 2002.

killing killers is not cruel and unusual punishment. letting them walk the streets because they are young is cruel punishment to the overwhelming majority of those that do not kill others. but i guess the majority has no rights in cases like this. carry on. and as for the 'mentally retarded' that kill, well... kill them too. nothing says we're a bunch of tards like letting some 'mentally retarded' person walk around after they hacked up someone, on account of being a tard. i'm not a tard.

The Case is Roper v. Simmons, 03-633.

and somewhere tonight a scumbag lawyer is grinning because he convinced at least 1 of 12 jurors that little timmy .22 or susie sawed-off can be saved or rehabilitated and won't kill again. good job, scumbag.

18.7.04

how to save water and get a good shower at the same time.

and here you thought i was just some negative person. anyways, check this showerhead out.


these showerheads are teh win!
7$ at home depot [the one on the right, i wanted the button, they didn't have]

i went to costco today, what a splendid place. sonicare refill 2 packs? 18$. razor blades are still expensive to ensure gilette makes the money back on all those free razors they pimp off, and to pay for those slick cgi super bowl spots, geez. but i have enough for 6 months! they had some strange kosher 100% concord grape juice* [* = well, almost except for a little concentrate, which is kosher too]. it's pretty good, and grape juice is very healthy stuff! once i get a blender, perhaps i use the frozen blueberry 3lb monster pack, the grape juice, some ice and maybe soy based smoothie stuff, and try that out.

it has been said that no one can dare enter a costco and leave without spending 100$. this excluding the food court part, that stuff is good. i was unable to debunk the myth this time, spending 108$. damn.

9.7.04

JERUSALEM (AP) - Palestinians called Friday's decision by the International Court of Justice on the massive West Bank wall "historic," while Israel rejected the world court's authority in judging the matter.

Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia hailed the ruling as the court in The Netherlands was still reading its decision. The court's decision, however, had leaked out ahead of time.

"The international high court decided clearly today that this racist wall is illegal to the root and Israel should stop building it and take down what has already been built of this wall. We welcome this decision," Qureia said.

"This is an historic day and a historic decision," he said.

Demonstrators turned out Friday near Jerusalem for and against the barrier.

Palestinians consider the barrier nothing less than a land grab. Israel says it is needed to protect Israeli cities from Palestinian suicide bombers who have killed hundreds.

"The International Court in The Hague has no authority to deal with disputes between Israel and the Palestinians," Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Jonathan Peled said.

The court ruled that Israel's planned 425-mile-long barrier in the West Bank violates international law and urged the United Nations to take action to stop its construction.

It dismissed Israel's arguments that the barrier was essential for its security and said the system of walls and fences went too far in infringing on the freedom of the Palestinians.

The court also ordered Israel to pay reparations to Palestinians harmed by the barrier and return land seized to construct the wall.

"The court accordingly finds that the construction of the wall, and its associated regime, are contrary to international laws," said court president Shi Jiuyong of China said, who was reading the lengthy and complex ruling at The Hague, Netherlands.

The court rebuffed Israel's argument - supported by the United States and several European countries - the court should refrain from interfering because the issue was political, not legal, and could disrupt Mideast peace efforts.

The 15-member court's opinion is only advisory, and Israel has made clear it will not be bound by it. However, it adds international pressure to stop construction of the 425-mile complex of towering concrete walls, razor-wire fences, trenches and watch towers. About a fourth has been completed so far, roughly along the pre-1967 border but with many dips into the West Bank.

Armed with the ruling, the Palestinians want the U.N. General Assembly to demand Israel dismantle the barrier. If Israel refuses, the Palestinians want the Security Council to enforce its dismantling, which could draw a U.S. veto.

"We hope the United States today will see to it that they will work to have Israel comply with the (court's) resolution," Palestinian Cabinet Minister Saeb Erekat said.

A banner where hundreds were gathering in the West Bank town of al-Ram, near Ramallah, read: "The Israeli wall, longer and higher than Berlin, but just as disgusting."

"It's a great decision. We are thrilled. It very clearly delegitimizes the wall and demands that it be pulled down," said Jamal Juma, coordinator of a Palestinian group called The Anti-apartheid Wall Campaign.

Less than 10 miles away, a few dozen Israelis gathered by a concrete section of the fence on the outskirts of Jerusalem, held pictures and banners of terror victims, waved Israeli flags, and displayed a large banner reading: "Fence out terrorism."

The Israeli-Arab Hadash party, meanwhile, filed a no-confidence motion Friday against the government over the security fence. Such motions are common, and this one was not expected to receive much support.

Israel's Army radio reported that the Defense Ministry was expecting Palestinian violence in the wake of any decision handed down. Palestinian Cabinet minister Saeb Erekat dismissed any suggestion Palestinian areas would erupt.

"I think this going to the high court is a way of seeking a diplomatic solution, not a way to violence," Erekat said.

Tayseer Tamimi, a Muslim cleric who addressed the al-Ram rally from beneath a canopy adorned with a picture of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and a Palestinian flag, urged people to protest the wall, but did not advocate violence. He also criticized the Arab world for staying silent when Israel began construction.

============================================================================

europeans are so smart. they know how to stop terrorism the best. this building of the evil zionist protection wall is definitely in violation of international law. the united nations know best. we should just inherently trust that they will always do the right thing, being the world's infallible organization.

"Palestinians consider the barrier nothing less than a land grab" and historical scholars recall 1967, when arab landers came and land grabbed all their land for their own. how soon these people forget.

"Israel says it is needed to protect Israeli cities from Palestinian suicide bombers who have killed hundreds." apparently the world court does not approve of any sovereign nation defending itself from homicide bombing ragheads by building protective architecture to secure the border.

and has it ever occured to those geniuses up there in the hague that israel only built this fence to keep bad people out? i serious think they are smoking way too much of that amsterhash when making pointless rulings like this. it's just one more reason to despise all that is the united nations, as they just want everyone to get along and be a big happy global village. nice dream, but that's it.

ragheads suck, god is great.
Jul 9, 1:47 AM (ET)

By ALEXANDRA ZAVIS

ON THE SUDAN BORDER (AP) - Hawa Sabir's family hid in the hills for six months, foraging for food in the trees and sneaking into a nearby town at night to look for water.

Hunted down from village to village, terrified black African farmers like Sabir have taken to the hills in Sudan's violence-torn Darfur region to escape the Arab militias that human rights groups accuse of ethnic cleansing. Up to 30,000 people have been killed and 1 million displaced so far.

But even this last refuge is being overrun by sword- and gun-wielding horsemen known as the Janjaweed, according to refugees arriving in the Chad border town of Bahai.

"The Janjaweed kill any men they find. They rape women and take our animals," Sabir said, resting under a tree after reaching Bahai on Wednesday night with about two dozen other refugees.

Long-simmering tensions between nomadic Arab herders and their farming neighbors exploded into violence when two black African rebel groups took up arms against the Sudanese government in February 2003 over what they consider unfair treatment in their struggle for land and water resources in Darfur.

The United Nations has called it the world's worst humanitarian crisis.

The rebel groups and refugees accuse the Sudanese government of backing the mostly Arab Janjaweed, a name that means "horsemen" in the local dialect. The government denies the charge and has promised to disarm the Janjaweed and other armed groups.

Many refugees have terrifying stories to tell. Sabir said that in her case, turbaned militia fighters in Sudanese military uniforms rode into her village of Abouleya, about 25 miles east of the Chad border. Three Antonov airplanes circled overhead.

"They bomb everything that moves," said Zenab Abakar, a neighbor who escaped with Sabir into the surrounding brush.

That night, the survivors returned to find every homestead torched. They continued to the next village, where residents gave them a little millet, some clothing and shoes for their journey into the hills around the village of Ombaro, a day and a half walk away.

They lived there with some 50 families, sleeping under the trees by a dried up river bed. When the millet ran out, they survived off seeds they found in the trees and softened in water.

But the only place they could find water was in Ombaro, which they said was occupied by Sudanese government forces. Fearing the young girls would be raped, the older women sneaked into the town under cover of darkness to use the well.

It was only a matter of time, however, before the Janjaweed caught up with them again. Early one morning, armed horsemen surrounded their camp, catching the families as they did their early morning prayers and built fires to make tea.

Abakar's brother was shot in the head - one of seven people killed, she said. Four teenage girls were also abducted during the attack, other women chimed in. They have not been seen since.

The survivors moved on to another hill, but a few weeks later it happened again. This time Sabir's son was killed.

Finally, when the last of their food ran out, three of the families decided to take their chances in Chad.

Sleeping during the day and walking at night, it took them five days to reach the border. Only the women and children made the journey, saying the few men still with them would be killed if they crossed paths with the Janjaweed.

Other refugees gave similar accounts. They could not say how many people in all are hiding in Darfur's hills.

On Thursday, Sabir's group was once again under a tree, only this time in the relative safety of Chad.

Up to 15,000 Sudanese refugees are sheltering in similar circumstances on the outskirts of this desert town. Some brought the newcomers food and water, others a mat to sleep on.

Sabir smiled with relief. "Here, we don't hear guns," she said.


isn't this the same sudan that once graciously welcomed usama, then kicked him out after they got one factory blowed up during the clinton administration's ultra proactive efforts to eradicate global terrorism? i wonder where these roving bands of militant arabs came from? perhaps arab land? surely there has to be a halliburton connection here, as there is no evil in this world that does not come from the american government or 'corporate interests'.

2.7.04


my name is stanley miller.
i was beaten by the police in los angeles, california.
at the time, i was leading police on a pursuit in a stolen car.
after i ran a red light.
since i was hit with a flashlight, i'm now a victim.
i'm looking forward to my multimillion dollar payout.
my attorney says i have brain damage from the beating.
i'm the new martyr for my 'community' to use to further their causes.
just ask al sharpton, jesse jackson, or the urban league.
some leaders in my community have threatened riots already because of this:

how much longer until the 'community' stops rallying around thugs like me?
bill cosby is talking about people like me when he puts 'his people' on blast. dig?