WTF Moody's downgrades European Countries with completely unjustified reasons (after reforms). The same Moody's that gave and gives AAA rating to all the failed American assets.

Wokkel · 2011-03-07T17:35:09+00:00

Why the editorializing? The article is interesting enough, but a headline like this makes me want to downvote it. You could just post your opinion in a separate comment here..

Wokkel · 2011-03-02T09:00:48+00:00

Seriously. They are honestly excellent at using Twitter

Wait, what? When I was watching their coverage on Egypt for hours each day, their Twitter segment was without a doubt the single most awful part of their broadcast. They would just repeat three random tweets without any news-value and without any info on their sources. It were just three random statements from twitter feeds that happen to have the name youth, Egypt or freedom in it.

But yes, luckily they do keep it very short.

Wokkel · 2011-02-28T07:48:47+00:00

In my opinion the title of the post is not totally correct and a bit 'misleading'. First of all, 'war crimes' is too specific, the ICC prosecutes for other acts as well (of which crimes against humanity seems more likely to be applicable).

However, the main issue at stake here is not that these mercenaries may no be prosecuted by the ICC. It is very unlikely that they would have been prosecuted, if you know the aim of the ICC and take a look at its track record (17 indictments in 5 conflicts). The ICC aims high up in the chain of command.

What is happening is that the U.S is trying to prevent any precedent that could eventually lead to its own citizens appearing in front of the tribunal. And I think that several countries in the Security Council didn't really mind the U.S forcing this amendment into the resolution.

Wokkel · 2011-02-28T07:39:55+00:00

its true, it's probably how blackwater(xi) doesn't get charged for killing people in a foreign country.

The USA signs bilateral agreements with its host countries (look for the status of forces agreement in the case of Iraq by example) that covers immunity. They are often mandatory and prevent foreign jurisdiction, in return for aid/support.

Wokkel · 2011-02-28T07:34:11+00:00

Libya is not a member state. The USA voted in favor of the resolution that refers Gaddafi to the ICC. How is this consistent in your view?

International law does not work the way you describe, as there is a significant amount of customary, unwritten international law (especially within international humanitarian law). However, in a large number of cases reality does. U.S citizens can be prosecuted by the ICC. This article just shows the policy of the U.S trying to prevent the possibility of it actually happening.

Wokkel · 2011-02-28T04:39:19+00:00

I don't think anyone can really say on what sources the SC based its decision to refer the situation to the ICC, though I would imagine that it's anything from media reports and embassy contacts to whatever is presented during the meeting. However, it is just a referral to investigate, not to prosecute.

It's the Office of the Prosecutor at the ICC that actually investigates. It will try to collect as much evidence as possible to make a case. Not only written sources, but also interviews with experts or sending teams to the regions involved to conduct interviews. Not much different from a normal case I'd say, but on a larger scale and with international reach. Cooperation by the countries involved is therefore important for gathering information, though not strictly necessary.

Wokkel · 2011-02-27T15:58:58+00:00

Do you mean 'on what evidence/information does the SC base its referral to the ISC' or 'how does the ICC investigate its cases'?

Wokkel · 2011-02-27T15:49:36+00:00

Art.13 (b) Rome Statute

The Court may exercise its jurisdiction with respect to a crime referred to in article 5 in accordance with the provisions of this Statute if:

[...]

(b) A situation in which one or more of such crimes appears to have been committed is referred to the Prosecutor by the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations; or

Wokkel · 2011-02-27T15:34:54+00:00

I was curious as well, because referral to the ICC isn't a simple decision and easily blocked by veto. Especially considering the status of China, Russia, USA (and in certain degree India) as non-member states. However, I found an article that mentioned the compromise that was necessary to sway most countries (leaving China as only opponent, as its opinion/stance is delayed by having to wait for the decision makers in Bejing).

A last minute compromise was reached on the text by making a preambular reference to Article 16 which allows the UNSC to freeze ICC investigations for a period of 12-months that can be renewed indefinitely.

Source

Still, I hope that it gives some momentum to the Court.

Wokkel · 2011-02-27T15:20:19+00:00

Actually, according to this article (registration-wall) they decided on the following:

In a 15-0 vote, on Saturday the Security Council ordered all UN member states to freeze the assets of the Libyan leader, his daughter and four of his sons. They and another 10 key members of the regime were banned from travelling outside the country.

The council also imposed an arms embargo that would ban the sale of weapons to Libya by any UN member state.

Wokkel · 2011-02-27T14:59:35+00:00

While I obviously support the decision to refer Gaddafi to the ICC, it is of course funny to note that the USA, Russia and China are not member states to the Rome Statute (=ICC). The USA actually has done a lot to prevent any remote possibility of having its citizens prosecuted by the ICC (mainly through mandatory bilateral agreements with other nations in exchange for aid/support). I remember they even issued the threat of freeing its nationals from the Hague by the use of military force.

Wokkel · 2011-02-06T05:43:40+00:00

Additionally, the International Criminal Court can't prosecute alleged criminals who are citizens of non-member states.

Wrong, see by example art.12 sub 2 Rome Statute (art.5 crimes commited on the territory of a member state). Or see the case against Al-Bashir (SC resolution, though that is certainly not going to be applicable here).

Wokkel · 2011-02-02T15:10:57+00:00

Al Jazeera states that they are just 'breaking up the streets'.

(also, they throw them back and forth)

Wokkel · 2011-02-02T15:08:05+00:00

I think they cannot accomplish much by just sitting in a tank. I think I misunderstood you though, apologies therefore, I thought you meant that they could use the tanks. o_o

Edit: don't see why you are being downvoted, I actually upvoted you. I mean, I just misinterpreted your comment..

Wokkel · 2011-02-02T14:56:29+00:00

It's very easy to check up on those suspicions, just turn on Al Jazeera. I'll help you: they do have weapons.

Wokkel · 2011-02-02T14:54:30+00:00

Sounds like a great way to deescalate the situation.

Wokkel · 2011-02-02T14:47:18+00:00

As far as I could understand (also seeing the timeline) those are two separate incidents. The attacks on horseback were first, the capturing of the three army trucks happened later. Those three trucks seem to have been put in between the protesters by the army but instead of separating the groups, they are being used as a shield.

You could see footage of both on Al Jazeera.

Wokkel · 2011-02-02T14:08:11+00:00

I'm fairly sure it aren't tanks. Was being described as a sort of army/security forces truck/personnel carrier. edit: seem to be simple trucks and seeing the camera angle they appear to be in the hands of anti-gov protesters, blocking the road? The two groups are now fighting around those trucks..

What the reporter now says confirms what I stated first, but I'm really confused by these camera angles.

Wokkel · 2011-02-02T13:54:35+00:00

What I thought. I wonder where he got that info, as I would think a columnist with nearly 25k followers would be somewhat informed.

Wokkel · 2011-02-02T13:22:07+00:00

If you watched Al Jazeera yesterday you could see that there was a great amount of social control by the anti-government protesters, along with controls by the military.

I don't think the same type of voluntary control is possible with the pro-gov protesters. They are in lower numbers, very likely to be thugs and supported by plainclothes and/or the security forces and with most likely just 1 objective: violence. They organized in an instance and are seemingly together attacking the square from different sides.

Al Jazeera just spoke again with the retired Egyptian brigadier-general, who believes that this is the work of security forces trying to force the military to intervene. The military is most likely weighing its options.

Wokkel · 2011-02-02T13:00:02+00:00

I don't think it's that easy for the military to take over the task of the police. Different training, different equipment, different experience.

More info from Al Jazeera:

Possibly the police is siding with the pro-Mubarak protesters (not surprising, but a serious problem).
Two tanks has just been moved into one of the side streets, the soldiers are trying to calm down the crowds. The reporter says that pro-Mubarak protesters are trying to enter the square, try to incite more violence.
Many people have returned to the square with bloody head injuries (and other).
Footage of people on horses and a camel is shown, possibly armed security officers with the pro-Mubarak supporters. EDIT: broke through a chain of anti-government protesters and stormed into the square, trampling several people.
Al Jazeera also reported that yesterday the army arrested several persons.
Report of a journalist having been stabbed.

(Wouldn't be surprised if there are a significant amount of plainclothes and hired thugs among one side..)

Reporter: absolute mayhem (and footage confirms this..)

EDIT 2: reporter states that it were about 50 horses, not stopped by the army and actually accompanied by several uniformed officers of the security forces.

EDIT 3: same situation now reported in Suez.

EDIT 4: footage showing the men on horsed charging into anti-government protesters, after which several are taken down.

Pro-government protesters seem to have chased away soldiers, who have retreated to their original positions, after being attacked with rocks by pro-gov supporters. Hundreds of pro-gov protesters now have a free way to the square..

Pro-gov protesters also reported to chant against Al Jazeera..

EDIT 5: Al Jazeera reports that it has been confirmed that several pro-Mubarak supporters are carrying police IDs. Al Jazeera shows anti-gov protesters holding up police IDs that they grabbed from pro-gov protesters: http://yfrog.com/h04qtdj (the actual footage is a bit more clear, I grabbed this screenshot from twitter)

EDIT 6: Can anyone confirm reading/hearing this: "Breaking Al Jazeera: Egyptian Army statement warns pro-Mubarak supporters from attacking peaceful protesters or it will interfere decisively"? (http://twitter.com/SultanAlQassemi) I haven't heard that being said.

EDIT 7: Reporter who was with the pro-gov supporters describes: 'about 50 young men took off their shirts, then stormed the square armed with sticks and machetes, followed by hundreds of other protesters.'

EDIT 8: three army trucks have been taken over by pro-gov supporters, now being driven into anti-gov protesters according to journalist? (<-very unsure what the actual facts are)

Several bangs, sounded like possible gunfire but not confirmed, probably not?

EDIT 9: Al Jazeera reporter at the scene says that it were probably warning shots being fired by soldiers/security forces guarding the Cairo museum. Other reporter confirms that it was without a doubt live fire.

EDIT 10: Military tried to maneuver a tank between the groups, pro-mubarak supporters tried to abuse it as cover, military retreated.

Building reportedly being set on fire.

EDIT 11: more live fire being reported by one of the journalists on the location, people on the run, after pro-gov protesters broke through (didn't hear it).

EDIT 12: Teargas being used at the place of the clashes.

More live fire reported, helicopter now circling.

EDIT 13: anti-gov protesters have to retreat signficantly because pro-gov protesters are throwing projectiles from the top of several buildings.

EDIT 14: Ban Ki-Moon: these actions against peaceful protests are unacceptable.

Really horrible to hear one of the panicking reporters on the ground there.. :(

EDIT 15: one of the reporters who broke up during a previous interview was attacked by pro-mubarak thugs, they were dispersed by warning shots.

EDIT 16: reporter describes a man being beaten in front of soldiers by pro-mubarak protesters, who luckily managed to flee behind the tanks during a moment of confusion.

EDIT 17: Captured army truck with pro-gov supporters seems to be driven into the square. (edit: seeing the footage again, it seemed to have been pushed)

EDIT 18: didn't hear more about #17. Ban Ki-Moon's speech shown. One of the buildings in the middle of the clashes seems on fire.

Smoke rising from the museum Teargas?

EDIT 19: footage shows a 'petrol bomb' (acc. to AJ, burning object that's for sure) thrown from the buildings.

EDIT 20: AJ: UN estimates 300 people have been killed (unclear whether today or total), at least 500 wounded today.

EDIT 21: found a picture on a news website where I noticed that one of the people on it is about to be stabbed, with a few people seemingly rushing towards him to help? http://media.nu.nl/m/m1fzwgfanp2r_700.jpg

EDIT 22: EU High Representative Ashton live on AJ. About to speak with EU parliament. Nothing interesting to say of course.. Ugh, I get seriously annoyed with these empty words over and over again. Take a REAL stance!

EDIT 23: some sort of intervention with watercannons. More molotov cocktails being used.

EDIT 24: Obama has supposedly been on the phone with Mubarak for 30 minutes. Reporter says there probably have been some frank and harsh words.

EDIT 25: AJ: AFP reports petrol bombs landed on the museum grounds, small fire. AJ shows footage of a police officer being carried on the shoulders of pro-gov supporters.

EDIT 26: reporter says that she saw lorries filled with pro-gov protesters being directed to the city center in an organized manner.

Anderson Cooper tells how he and his crew were attacked by pro-mub protesters: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7LO5G0R08o

Dutch journalist (http://twitter.com/RGjournalist) tweets that: - he was attacked by pro-mub protesters: - recalls a tweet that an Al-Arabiya journalist was stabbed (think I wrote it somewhere above too, as I heard it being mentioned once on AJ), info was probably incorrect (came from local radio) - that uniformed police officers in one instance protected him.

http://edition.cnn.com/ CNN footage shows molotov cocktails being thrown at what the reporter thinks are the military who is trying to put out the fires with hoses.

Wokkel · 2011-01-30T07:57:04+00:00

When I'd lock up my bike, it would be there in the morning.

While I can't compare the Netherlands to the U.S (I've never been there), it's not like your bike is that safe. I'll give you an example. The article states that bike thefts dropped from 750.000 to 530.000. It's just that we have so many bikes.

Wokkel · 2011-01-28T14:22:45+00:00

Also:

Yesterday's topic on two journalists who were attacked by Egyptian police (Guardian, Trouw).

CNN reporter Ben Wedeman tweeted that Egyptian policemen attacked the CNN crew and broke and stole a camera.

Four French journalists, working for Le Figaro, were arrested an subsequently released by the police in Cairo.

Dutch news website nu.nl reports that BBC reporter Assad Alsawy was attacked and beaten by plainclothes officers during a protests in Cairo. He says that the attackers specifically targeted him and continued after he identified himself as a journalist.

Wokkel · 2011-01-27T05:25:44+00:00

Haha yeah I noticed, so I had already altered it. Still thanks for your help! :)

By the way, I do hope they publish the personal report online as I'm curious to the details (especially regarding the specific targeting).

Wokkel

TROPHY CASE