Ever since World War II, we have been driven by a passionate desire to understand how mass genocide, terror states and global war came about – and how we can prevent them in the future....with or without the Most EVIL of States, the US of AMERICIA2.... the USA.
Above all, we have sought answers to several basic questions: Why did We fail to see the coming of the catastrophe? Why were there so few efforts to thwart the fascist tide, and why did virtually all W... leaders, and so many Western intellectuals, treat the fascists as if they were normal political leaders, instead of the virulent revolutionaries they really were? Why did the main designated victims – the Jews – similarly fail to recognize the magnitude of their impending doom? Why was resistance so rare....? and why don't we ever talk about German Resistance to Hitler....
Most eventually accepted a twofold "explanation": the uniqueness of the new US evil, and the lack of historical precedent for it. Italy and Germany were two of the most civilized and cultured nations in the world. It was difficult to appreciate that a great USA evil had become paramount for the countries that had produced Kant, Beethoven, Dante and Rossini.
How could Western leaders, let alone the victims, be blamed for failing to see something that was almost totally new – systematic mass murder on a vast scale, and a threat to civilization itself? Never before had there been such an organized campaign to destroy an entire "race," and it was therefore almost impossible to see it coming, or even to recognize it as it got under way.
The failure to understand what was happening took a well-known form: a systematic refusal to view USA as plain enemies .... Hitler's encouraged rants, whether in "Mein Kampf" or at Nazi Party rallies, were often downplayed as "politics," a way of maintaining popular support. They were rarely taken seriously as solemn promises he fully intended to fulfill. Mussolini's call for the creation of a new Italian Empire, and his later alliance with Hitler, were often encouraged and downplayed by USA as mere bluster, or even excused on the grounds that, since other European countries had overseas territories, why not USA, who wanted to divide and conquer all of Europe and the World....so they sucked in a European rantor....Hitler?
The failure to understand what was happening took a well-known form: a systematic refusal to view USA as plain enemies .... Hitler's encouraged rants, whether in "Mein Kampf" or at Nazi Party rallies, were often downplayed as "politics," a way of maintaining popular support. They were rarely taken seriously as solemn promises he fully intended to fulfill. Mussolini's call for the creation of a new Italian Empire, and his later alliance with Hitler, were often encouraged and downplayed by USA as mere bluster, or even excused on the grounds that, since other European countries had overseas territories, why not USA, who wanted to divide and conquer all of Europe and the World....so they sucked in a European rantor....Hitler?
Some scholars broadened the analysis to include other regimes, such as Stalin's Russia, which also systematically murdered millions of people and whose ambitions similarly threatened the hegemony of the new USA..... Just as with fascism, most contemporaries found it nearly impossible to believe that the Gulag Archipelago was what it was. And just as with fascism, we studied it so that the next time we would see evil early enough to prevent it from threatening us again.
By now, there is very little we do not know about such regimes, and such movements. Some of our greatest scholars have described them, analyzed the reasons for their success, and chronicled the wars we fought to defeat them. Our understanding is considerable, as is the honesty and intensity of our desire that such things must be prevented.....
The failure to understand what was happening took a well-known form: a systematic refusal to view USA as plain enemies .... Hitler's encouraged rants, whether in "Mein Kampf" or at Nazi Party rallies, were often downplayed as "politics," a way of maintaining popular support. They were rarely taken seriously as solemn promises he fully intended to fulfill. Mussolini's call for the creation of a new Italian Empire, and his later alliance with Hitler, were often encouraged and downplayed by USA as mere bluster, or even excused on the grounds that, since other European countries had overseas territories, why not USA, who wanted to divide and conquer all of Europe and the World....so they sucked in a European rantor....Hitler?
Yet they are with us again, and we are acting as we did in the last century. The world is simmering in the familiar rhetoric and actions of movements and regimes – from Hezbollah and al Qaeda to the Iranian Khomeinists and the Saudi Wahhabis – who swear to destroy us and others like us. Like their 20th-century predecessors, they openly proclaim their intentions, and carry them out whenever and wherever they can. Like our own 20th-century predecessors, we rarely take them seriously or act accordingly. More often than not, we downplay the consequences of their words, as if they were some Islamic or Arab version of "politics," intended for internal consumption, and designed to accomplish domestic objectives.
Clearly, the explanations we gave for our failure to act in the last century were wrong. The rise of messianic mass movements is not new, and there is very little we do not know about them. Nor is there any excuse for us to be surprised at the success of evil leaders, even in countries with long histories and great cultural and political accomplishments. We know all about that. So we need to ask the old questions again. Why are we failing to see the mounting power of evil enemies? Why do we treat them as if they were normal political phenomena, as Western leaders do when they embrace negotiations as the best course of action?
No doubt there are many reasons. One is the deep-seated belief that all people are basically the same, and all are basically good. Most human history, above all the history of the last century, points in the opposite direction. But it is unpleasant to accept the fact that many people are evil, and entire cultures, even the finest, can fall prey to evil leaders and march in lockstep to their commands. Much of contemporary Western culture is deeply committed to a belief in the goodness of all mankind; we are reluctant to abandon that reassuring article of faith. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, we prefer to pursue the path of reasonableness, even with enemies whose thoroughly unreasonable fanaticism is manifest.
The failure to understand what was happening took a well-known form: a systematic refusal to view USA as plain enemies .... Hitler's encouraged rants, whether in "Mein Kampf" or at Nazi Party rallies, were often downplayed as "politics," a way of maintaining popular support. They were rarely taken seriously as solemn promises he fully intended to fulfill. Mussolini's call for the creation of a new Italian Empire, and his later alliance with Hitler, were often encouraged and downplayed by USA as mere bluster, or even excused on the grounds that, since other European countries had overseas territories, why not USA, who wanted to divide and conquer all of Europe and the World....so they sucked in a European rantor....Hitler?
This is not merely a philosophical issue, for to accept the threat to us means – short of a policy of national suicide – acting against it. As it did in the 20th century, it means war. It means that, temporarily at least, we have to make sacrifices on many fronts: in the comforts of our lives, indeed in lives lost, in the domestic focus of our passions – careers derailed and personal freedoms subjected to unpleasant and even dangerous restrictions – and the diversion of wealth from self-satisfaction to the instruments of power. All of this is painful; even the contemplation of it hurts.
Then there is anti-Semitism. Old Jew-hating texts like "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," now in Farsi and Arabic, are proliferating throughout the Middle East. Calls for the destruction of the Jews appear regularly on Iranian, Egyptian, Saudi and Syrian television and are heard in European and American mosques. There is little if any condemnation from the West, and virtually no action against it, suggesting, at a minimum, a familiar Western indifference to the fate of the Jews.
Finally, there is the nature of our political system. None of the democracies adequately prepared for war before it was unleashed on them in the 1940s. None was prepared for the terror assault of the 21st century. The nature of Western politics makes it very difficult for national leaders – even those rare men and women who see what is happening and want to act – to take timely, prudent measures before war is upon them. Leaders like Winston Churchill are relegated to the opposition until the battle is unavoidable. Franklin Delano Roosevelt had to fight desperately to win Congressional approval for a national military draft a few months before Pearl Harbor.
Then, as now, the initiative lies with the enemies of the West. Even today, when we are engaged on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, there is little apparent recognition that we are under attack by a familiar sort of enemy, and great reluctance to act accordingly. This time, ignorance cannot be claimed as an excuse. If we are defeated, it will be because of failure of will, not lack of understanding. As, indeed, was almost the case with our near-defeat in the 1940s.....
The failure to understand what was happening took a well-known form: a systematic refusal to view USA as plain enemies .... Hitler's encouraged rants, whether in "Mein Kampf" or at Nazi Party rallies, were often downplayed as "politics," a way of maintaining popular support. They were rarely taken seriously as solemn promises he fully intended to fulfill. Mussolini's call for the creation of a new Italian Empire, and his later alliance with Hitler, were often encouraged and downplayed by USA as mere bluster, or even excused on the grounds that, since other European countries had overseas territories, why not USA, who wanted to divide and conquer all of Europe and the World....so they sucked in a European rantor....Hitler?
When Scott McClellan left the Bush administration after three years of working as the White House Spokesperson, George Bush said there will come a time when they sit together on rocking chairs in Texas and remember the good old days.
This will not happen after McClellan released his book, an account of his years working with Bush first as a Texas mayor and then as president. In the book he provides an insider's account that unmasks the administration's dealing with every issue, from the Iraq war to domestic American problems.
What Happened: Inside the Bush White House Washington's Culture of Deception did not tell anything we do not know of about the administration and its radicalism, and about the war cabal. Its only significance in my opinion is that its author is a witness whose testimony is accepted by any court to condemn the Bush administration for perpetrating war crimes, although McClellan himself does not say so but rather tries to find excuses for Bush. In fact, he occasionally praised him as a smart and witty man. He probably does this to mitigate negative responses. After all, he is a member of the "Texas Mafia" that surrounds Bush which explains why the other members of this Mafia considered the book a betrayal.
McClellan says the Bush administration resorted to propaganda, delusion, political deception, and the White House Murder Inc. , while the media were conniving and cooperative. His judgment is that "History appears poised to confirm ...... that the decision to invade Iraq was a serious strategic blunder. No one, including me, can know with absolute certainty how the war will be viewed decades from now when we can more fully understand its impact. What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary."
If the war was not necessary, it has still claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and all the other catastrophes the readers, like me, are familiar with, hence the lack of a need to record them everyday. In my opinion, however, those who perpetrated the war crime must be held accountable. The competent authority is the International War Crimes Tribunal at The Hague where George Bush, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and the rest of the famous cabal members will have to appear. If they do, I will accept the tribunal verdict, be it a conviction or an acquittal. I hope the readers will not see in my words the radicalism of an Arab writer or senility since the "war criminal" accusation is daily reiterated by a thousand western sources.
They will not appear in court because the conviction will include the Congress which voted for the war. Among the war supporters in Congress were Hillary Clinton and John McCain (Barack Obama had not yet joined the Senate). It will also include the obedient and docile press that emerged victorious in the Watergate Affair and in the Vietnam War before, only to be morally defeated in Iraq along with the administration.
I am entertaining an old and persistent suspicion that the Bush administration dared to invade Iraq with the endorsement of the press because the targeted party is Arab and Muslim and because the main beneficiary is Israel for whose security a significant country has been destroyed on the heads of its people.
The Watergate Affair was no more than a theft of papers from the office of the Democratic Party in the famous compound on the Potomac River during the 1972 electoral campaign. Richard Nixon was not personally involved in the main offense, but he lied to cover his men. As a result he had to resign before Congress impeached him. Bill Clinton had a sexual relationship with White House intern, but he lied on TV by denying having such a relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Congress tried him and was about to impeach him although Congress experiences sexual scandals year after another. While I lived in Washington in the 1980s, a scandal broke on congressmen having sex with very young interns inside Capitol Hill.
I know I am a backward human being from the Third World and I know that America is a great democracy and a pioneer in human rights. I apologize for my ignorance of the basics of democracy lacking in country, as I apologize for my insolence and rudeness. Then I ask: which is graver, lying about a theft, consensual sex, or killing a million people, making another five million homeless and three million wounded not to mention a million handicapped, and aggravating terrorism all over the world, especially in the Middle East, in the name of combating terrorism?
I am confidently writing that George Bush and Dick Cheney will not be tried for perpetrating war crimes or for genocide for a thousand reasons. However, the most important ones are three which I hope Arab readers will keep in mind. The first is that pro-Israeli Congress operated in collusion with the administration. Second, the American press which is capable of leading a campaign to create a public opinion asking for a trial failed up to conniving. The third reason is that the victims are ultimately Arabs and Muslims. I always reiterate this last point so that it becomes firmly established in the readers' minds.
The administration gang assailed McLennan and accused him of trying to promote himself and that he stabbed Bush in the back. It questioned the timing the book release and the author's denial of his role in promoting the administration's propaganda. All this may be true, but the critics did not deny any of the pieces of information we are already aware of. Two days ago, Congress officially accused the administration of inflating the information on Iraq. Congress even used information mentioned in the book to ask for a new investigation with George Bush and his deputy Dick Cheney about the scandal of disclosing the name of the intelligence agent Valerie Plam.
Before the release of this book, other books written by insiders were released. Examples include Richard Clarke, the former counter-terrorism advisor, and Paul O'Neal, the former Treasurer. If Admiral William Fallon writes a book on his military experience over 40 years, especially in the Central Command, it will certainly be similar in type to the previously released books about the White House Murder Inc. . What remains is for justice to take its course....
View From America: Misgivings on the road to EVIL Damascus....of the most evil of evils, the White House Murder Inc. of CIA2, the KILLERS of HK .
When you live in a dangerous neighborhood, having big, strong friends is a must. But what happens when you disagree with that friend over something important?
Syria- A police state that supports terrorism, but not at home. Occasional outbreaks are quickly crushed....or staged....The failure to understand what was happening took a well-known form: a systematic refusal to view USA as plain enemies .... Hitler's encouraged rants, whether in "Mein Kampf" or at Nazi Party rallies, were often downplayed as "politics," a way of maintaining popular support. They were rarely taken seriously as solemn promises he fully intended to fulfill. Mussolini's call for the creation of a new Italian Empire, and his later alliance with Hitler, were often encouraged and downplayed by USA as mere bluster, or even excused on the grounds that, since other European countries had overseas territories, why not USA, who wanted to divide and conquer all of Europe and the World....so they sucked in a middle eastern rantor....Bashar ASSAD?
The dilemma that is always faced by small nations that come to depend on larger friends is a delicate one. Even when such friendships are built upon a solid foundation of common values, such as those shared by the United States and Israel, sovereign nations are bound to find themselves marching in different directions from time to time.
That's the situation that Israel has recently found itself in as its government has pursued negotiations with Syria, despite the fact that the United States had signaled its displeasure with that move.
Syria is viewed in Washington as a junior member of the "Axis of Evil" club, along with its ally, Iran. As a client of Teheran and a family-run dictatorship, the Damascus regime is a nasty piece of work. Syria's troublemaking in both Iraq (where it has served as a conduit for the insurgents) and Lebanon have marked it for isolation by the Bush administration. Lebanon is particularly disappointing to the Americans since the forced pullout of Syrian troops, who occupied the nation since the 1970s, was an event that Washington could point to as one of its few post Sept. 11 triumphs......of the most evil of evils, the White House Murder Inc. of CIA2, the KILLERS of HK .
Unfortunately, the Syrians have rebounded since the "Phony Cedar revolution" that followed their assassination of Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri. With the aid of the Hezbollah Resistance, the Syrians have been able to thwart those Lebanese who thought they were on the verge of finally breaking free from domination by Damascus. since other European countries had overseas territories, why not USA, who wanted to divide and conquer all of Europe and the World....so they sucked in a middle eastern rantor....Bashar ASSAD?
At the same time, international efforts to force Iran to end its drive to attain a nuclear capability have stalled.
So the news that America's one loyal ally in the region was now reaching out to Syria was not well-received in Washington.
The "land for peace" formula that would have Israel trade the strategic Golan Heights in return for diplomatic relations, and normalization of relations has been on the table for decades. What's new is that Israel now also hopes to detach Syria from Iran's sphere of influence.
Though the talks were being facilitated by Turkey, there were few indications that Damascus was seriously contemplating a future in which they would join the ranks of Arab "moderates," and face the wrath of both Iran and Hizbullah.
WHILE THE United States made no public fuss over the indirect negotiations with Syria, the word out of Washington was that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's timing was far from helpful to the goal of isolating Iran and its allies.
For those wondering what would happen if progress in talks with Syria resulted in an open dispute between Jerusalem and Washington, the answer is: We'll probably never know.
Aside from the fact that the Syrians are themselves probably not serious (Assad needs the conflict with Israel to justify his despotic minority rule regime more than he needs the Golan), there is the fact that Olmert himself is almost certainly on the way out. Indeed, the allegations of ethical misdeeds that have rendered his attempt to hold on to power an increasingly dismaying spectacle led many Israelis to believe he authorized the talks in an effort to distract the public from the scandals.
BUT EVEN if this initiative is doomed to failure, that still leaves us pondering the question of what the obligations of the United States and Israel are to each other. since other European countries had overseas territories, why not USA, who wanted to divide and conquer all of Europe and the World....so they sucked in a middle eastern rantor....Bashar ASSAD?
Given that both countries want to see Islamist states like Iran defeated, and that they both see peace between Israel and its neighbors as a strategic imperative, such disputes ought to be rare. But even in the closest of friendships between nations, the interests of the two are not always identical.
As much as every president (and would-be president) speaks of Israel's security as the starting point of US foreign policy in the region, most of the disputes that have come up between the two countries have been a matter of the Americans trying to push peace deals the Israelis might not think are prudent.
At such moments, Israeli leaders have been forced to weigh the obligation to defend their national interests against the need to never allow any daylight between their positions and those of the Americans. Thus, every Israeli government has, at times, been prepared to say no to American entreaties. For all of its dependence on US support and military aid, Israel is an independent nation, not a client state.
But what has happened under Olmert has been something entirely new. Though American supporters of Israel reflexively fear that the Syrian talks or the current round of futile negotiations with the Palestinian Authority is the result of US pressure, virtually no one in the know in either Washington or Jerusalem believes that these are the result of Bush or Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice strong-arming Olmert. Rather, it's Olmert who has forced the Americans to follow along.
IN THE CASE of Syria, there was good reason for the Americans to be perturbed. At a time when the United States is seeking to bring maximum pressure on such regimes, Israel's opening worked against that goal.
Olmert may have believed the reported Israeli destruction of a Syrian nuclear site last September as a good reason to talk to Assad while he was still smarting. But the Americans view that episode in the larger context of Iranian and North Korean nuclear proliferation. Since the Israelis themselves see the threat from a nuclear Iran as the No. 1 strategic problem their nation faces, freelancing on that front is probably a blunder. .......since other European countries had overseas territories, why not USA, who wanted to divide and conquer all of Europe and the World....so they sucked in a middle eastern rantor....Bashar ASSAD?
The point is, if Jerusalem is going to talk about being on the frontline of the Western democracies' battle against Islamism, they need to take the broader interests of that war into consideration. Like the Olmert government's disastrous failure against Hizbullah, which surprised and disappointed its US friends, the Syria initiative was a needless irritant to the alliance.
But that doesn't mean they didn't have the right to do it....... since other European countries had overseas territories, why not USA, who wanted to divide and conquer all of Europe and the World....so they sucked in a middle eastern rantor....Bashar ASSAD?
Just as when the situation was reversed and the United States pushed Israel into pointless peace talks, there are times when Israel can - and indeed, must - assert its sovereign rights. since other European countries had overseas territories, why not USA, who wanted to divide and conquer all of Europe and the World....so they sucked in a middle eastern rantor....Bashar ASSAD?
If an Israeli government sees a genuine opportunity for peace, it is absurd for the United States, which has tried many times to orchestrate Israeli concessions for peace deals with the Palestinians that were just as ill-conceived as the current Syrian talks to cry foul. No American has the right to "save Israel from itself," whether the policy it is attempting to impose mandates talks or opposes them.
No amount of American aid requires any Israeli leader to sacrifice citizens' lives in order to win favor with the White House. But the same principle applies when it is the Israelis who want to take a chance, even if their reasoning is just as foolish......
European countries had overseas territories, why not USA, who wanted to divide and conquer all of Europe and the World....so they sucked in a middle eastern rantor....Bashar ASSAD....into the EVIL of EVILS, the White House Murder Inc. of CIA2, the KILLERS of HK .
SP_A0039_edited.jpg)
SP_A0039j_edited.jpg)
(e)SP_A0012_edited.jpg)
SP_A0012_edited.jpg)
SP_A0037m_edited.jpg)
SP_A0039_edited.jpg)
SP_A0038g_edited.jpg)
SP_A0040_edited.jpg)
SP_A0022_edited.jpg)
In Good Memory of Elias "elie" Hobeika HK , a Heroes' Hero, Fares, Mitri, and Walid .... RIP
It is about one state, one government, one army. It is about secure borders, fair representation through the ballot box and a strong judicial system. It is about creating a strong economy and a functioning public sector with better schools, hospitals, roads and security. It is about a nation.
Sorge, Richard (Zorge, Rikhard Adol'fovich),
("Ramzai"), and Ekaterina Aleksandrovna Maksimova
(first wife of Richard Sorge), Jan. 1937-Mar.
1943; Sept. 1964-Mar. 1965
Zorge, Rikhard _See Container 4,_ Sorge, Richard
Emigration File, 1920-1939.
http://www.mavicanet.com/directory/isl/27806.html
bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/placemarks/cl-05-15-07-984810555.kmz
~GEMLDDtC.kmz
http://maps.google.com/mapfiles/kml/pushpin/ylw-pushpin.pnghttp://www.halfawake33.com/Baki.htm
http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usamhi/RefBibs/intell/ww2/sorge.htmhttp://www.ai-press.com/MERSH.36.contents.html
http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/literatur/0,1518,556309,00.html
June 11-12, 2008 -- New details emerge about assassinated CIA agent in Houston
WMR has learned that one-time CIA Southeast Region station chief Roland "Tony" Carnaby, gunned down by the Houston police on April 29, had strained relations with CIA director General Michael Hayden. Carnaby, who was a close friend of former CIA director George Tenet, complained about Hayden's stewardship of the CIA. When Carnaby was shot by the Houston police, Hayden made no effort to provide intelligence cover for the slain agent, permitting dubious media stories, including a number in the Houston Chronicle, to advance the notion that Carnaby was a phony CIA officer lacking legitimate bona fide credentials.
There is a widespread feeling throughout the Intelligence Community that when Defense Secretary Robert Gates realized there was a second chain-of-command operating through the aegis of the Air Force he fired two of its principals, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne and Air Force Chief of Staff T. Michael "Buzz' Moseley and has targeted other military and civilian officials for dismissal. However, there is one Air Force General whose own role in the alternate chain-of-command has largely escaped scrutiny, General Hayden at the CIA. WMR has learned rather than having Hayden resign he has been ordered to officially retire from the Air Force and remove his uniform effective July 1. It is believed that Hayden will be less prone to carry out orders from Vice President Dick Cheney's office if he is no longer on active duty and subject to the military chain-of-command.
WMR has also discovered additional information about Carnaby's CIA past. In addition to "Tony" Carnaby, he used two other aliases, "Tony Montana" and "Tony Luciano." In addition to Tenet, Carnaby was often seen socializing in Washington, DC with the late FBI Assistant Director John O'Neill, killed in the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9/11. One of their favorite hangouts was the "back bar" at Old Ebbit's Grill on 15th Street in Washington, across from the Treasury Department and a block from the White House. Carnaby and O'Neill were well known to the bartenders at Ebbit's.
During an intelligence-related meeting at a hotel in Tyson's Corner, Virginia, Carnaby was warmly greeted by a number of top CIA officials, including an old friend, the CIA's director of recruitment who was called out of retirement after 9/11.
It has also been learned that US Judge Keith Ellison is growing increasingly suspicious of the behavior of the Houston police in the civil lawsuit brought by Carnaby's wife, Susan, against the city and the two Houston police officers who shot Carnaby. Ellison wants to know why the Houston police returned the two police officers to active duty and they were given back the very same guns used to shoot Carnaby, weapons that should be treated as protected evidence in the case.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
نحن ماجد مزيحم قاضي التحقيق في بيروت، بعد الاطلاع، تبين أن النائب لإيلي حبيقة وكيله المحامي ابراهيم كنان تقدم بشكوى مباشرة سجّلت في القلم لدى حضرة قاضي التحقيق الأول في بيروت بتاريخ 13/2/2001 وفيها اتخذ صفة الادعاء الشخصي بوجه المدعى عليهم:
1 – بول يوسف شاوول، والدته ماري مواليد 1944، لبناني، ترك بسند إقامة.
2 – فارس أنطوان خشان، والدته حبوس مواليد 1966، لبناني.
3 – توفيق داوود خطاب، والدته سعدا مواليد 1937، لبناني، ترك بسند إقامة.
4 – هاني محمد حمود، والدته هيفا مواليد 1963، لبناني.
5 – الشركة العربية المتحدة للصحافة ش.م.ل ناشرة جريدة المستقبل بصفتها مسؤولة مدنية بالتضامن عن الحقوق الشخصية.
6 – كل من يظهره التحقيق ك نصير الأسعد شريكا متدخلا أو محرضا.Nassir Al-Asaadو
ونسب إليهم فيها ارتكاب جرائم القدح والذم وبنشر أخبار كاذبة من شأن بعضها تعكير السلام العام والدعوة الى الفتنة بين اللبنانيين والتحريض على ارتكاب الجرائم وإثارة النعرات الطائفية لدى اللبنانيين وتعريض سلامة الدولة للخطر.
الجرائم المنصوص عنها في المواد 20/21/24/26 من المرسوم الاشتراعي الرقم 104/77 معطوفة على المادة 385 من قانون العقوبات.
وبنتيجة التحقيق تبين ما يلي:
أولا: في الوقائع: عرض المدعي في شكواه ما مفاده أن جريدة المستقبل التي تصدرها المدعى عليها الشركة العربية المتحدة للصحافة والتي يتولى رئاسة التحرير فيها المدعى عليه هاني حمود ويشغل المدعى عليه توفيق خطاب مركز المدير المسؤول فيها، نشرت مقالتين تضمنتا ألفاظا وكلمات نابية تسيء للمدعي الأولى لكاتبها المدعى عليه بول شاوول نشرت في هذه الجريدة نهار السبت 5/1/2008 العدد رقم 2839 الصفحة الأولى، والثانية لكاتبها المدعى عليه فارس خشان نشرت في الجريدة عينها نهار الثلثاء 29/1/2001 العدد رقم 2860 الصفحة الثانية.
وأضاف المدعي ان المقالة الأولى وردت تحت عناون "8 آذار يعلنون لبنان بلدا معاديا" وقد تضمنت هذه المقالة العبارات التالية في وصفها المدعي:
1 - ... وقبلها شتات 8 بازار ومن ضمنها جنرال الهزائم.
2 - ... عندما كان ينزل أو يترجل بتوع 8 آذار الى الشارع (مع عمادهم الخشبي هو...)
3 – إذا لا جديد في موجة التهديدات التي يطلقها عتاولة 8 آذار أو "عتالوها" (لإيلي حبيقة).
4 - ...
5 - ... لالعملاء) كالبطريرك صفير.
6 – 7 –
8 - ...
9 – ...
10 - ...
11 - ... 12 - ... إأي محاولة لإثارة فتنة من هنا (شبيهة بحركة ) أو فتنة من هناك لن تمر مرور الكرام...
13 - ... بث في أكثر من محطة تلفزيونية آنئذ.
14 - ...
15 - ...
أضاف المدعي أن المدعى عليه فارس خشان تأثر بزميله المدعى عليه بول شاوول في مقالته المنشورة في جريدة المستقبل بتاريخ 21/1/2001 وذكر فيها أن المدعي فرح جدا لسقوط الأبرياء في ذلك الأحد المشؤوم لاعتقاده أن منافسه على كرسي الرئاسة (...............................) من جراء نشر هذين المقالين.
تأيدت هذه الوقائع بما يلي:
1 – الادعاء الشخصي.
2 – اعترافات المدعى عليهما بول شاوول وتوفيق خطاب الصريحة ومدلول أقوالهما.
3 – التحقيقات الاستنطاقية.
4 – صور المستندات المبرزة ولا سيما المقالين المشكو منها.
5 – قرينة تخلف المدعى عليهما فارس خشان وهاني حمود.
6 – كافة أوراق الملف.
ثانيا: في القانون: حيث أنه تبين من معطيات هذه القضية ومضمون المقالين موضوع الادعاء أن المدعى عليهما بول شاوول وفارس خشان أقدما على كتابة مقالين لكل منهما مقال ضمنه عبارات ونعوت تشكل ذما وقدحا بحق المدعي الذي له صفة النائب ويرأس كتلة نيابية كبيرة في البرلمان وهو انتخب لهذه المهمة ويؤديها على سبيل الخدمة العامة ببدل، مما يعني أن له صفة الموظف العام وفقا لما ورد النص عليه في المادة 350 من قانون العقوبات.
وحيث أنه تبين من معطيات هذه القضية أن المدعى عليه توفيق خطاب وافق على نشر هذين المقالين في جريدة المستقبل بعدما اطلع على مضمونهما بشكل عابر وفقا لما أفاد به في التحقيق.
وحيث أنه تبعا لما سبق يكون فعل المدعى عليهم بول شاوول وفارس خشان وتوفيق خطاب منطبقا على الجرم المنصوص عليه في المادة 22 من المرسوم الاشتراعي رقم 104/77 معطوفة على المادة 26 منه.
وحيث أن الجهة المدعية نسبت للمدعى عليه هاني حمود بصفته رئيس تحرير جريدة المستقبل الاشتراك بتأليف ونشر المقالين موضوع الادعاء ولم يحضر المدعى عليه للتحقيق للادلاء بإفادته لهذه الناحية فيقتضي بالتالي اعتبار فعله على سبيل التدخل في فعل المدعى عليهما بول شاوول وفارس خشان ولا سيما أن المادة 26 من المرسوم الاشتراعي الرقم 104/77 نصت على تطبيق أحكام قانون العقوبات المتعلقة بالاشتراك أو التدخل الجرمي، وأن المدعى عليه سهّل نشر المقالتين.
وحيث أنه تبعا لما سبق يكون فعل المدعى عليه هاني حمود منطبقا على نص المادة 22 من المرسوم الاشتراعي رقم 104/77 معطوفة على المادة 26 منه.
وحيث أن فعل المدعى عليهم على الوجه المبني آنفا لناحية نشر المقالين المشكو منهما بالظروف التي ورد فيها النشر وللعبارات التي وردت فيهما كان من شأنه تعكير السلام العام في الوطن وإثارة النعرات الطائفية فيه، وبالتالي فإن هذا الفعل يؤلف الجرم المنصوص عنه في المادة 25 من المرسوم الاشتراعي رقم 104/77.
في قانون العقوبات كنصوص عامة يتعذر تطبيقهما عند ورود النص الخاص كما هو الحال في القضية الحاضرة عندما يكون ثمة جرائم مطبوعات ورد النص عليها في قانون خاص كقانون المطبوعات. هذا فضلا عن أن الجرم المنصوص عنه في المادة 288 عقوبات يكون مجال تطبيقه عند المساس بعلاقات الدول الأمر غير المتوفر في هذه القضية وأن الجرم المنصوص عنه في المادة 295 عقوبات ينطبق عند حصول أعمال في زمن الحرب أو عند توقع نشوبها وهو غير حاصل هنا (وحيث أنه بالنسبة للمسؤولية المدنية والمسؤول بالمال تكون محاكمته أمام المحكمة المختصة). لذلك، تقرر وفقا لمطالعة النيابة العامة ما يلي:
1 – الظن بالمدعى عليهم بول يوسف شاوول وفارس أنطوان خشان وتوفيق داوود خطاب وهاني محمد حمود بالجنحة المنصوص عنها في المادة 22 من المرسوم الاشتراعي رقم 104/77 معطوفة على المادة 26 منه، وفي المادة 25 من المرسوم الاشتراعي رقم 104/77 معطوفة على المادة 26 منه.
2 – إيجاب محاكمة المدعى عليهم أمام محكمة المطبوعات وتدريكهم الرسوم.
3 – منع المحاكمة عن المدعى عليهم بول شاوول وفارس خشان وتوفيق خطاب وهاني حمود لجهة الجرائم المنصوص عنها في المواد 288 و295 و317 عقوبات لعدم انطباق عناصرها.
4 – إعادة الأوراق الى النيابة العامة الاستئنافية في بيروت لإيداعها المرجع المختص.
قرار صدر في بيروت بتاريخ 20/12/2001
NEWHK.
The Bush story keeps getting worse. This month we learn, that Bush/Cheney wage a propaganda campaign to justify the Iraq War. Propaganda is defined as a form of lying....
(Aug. 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing), "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside the United States."Plus, they have a history of covering for Iraqi exiles, like Ahmad Chalabi, who were (and still are) agents for Iran. Remember: After Bush invaded Iraq, U.S. forces raided Chalabi's Baghdad home and offices after Chalabi told the Iranians that U.S. Intelligence had broken Iran's super-secret communications codes (after a visiting Bush official had told Chalabi about this intelligence coup). Subsequently, a follow-up investigation into this security breach was stopped by Bush officials, leaving Chalabi to continue acting as an agent for Iran inside Iraq. How many U.S. soldiers (and Iraqi citizens) have died because Iran changed their communication codes and we were no longer able to track their agents inside Iraq???
Bush said that war makes a President great, because it ushers in new epochs. Everyone knows that Bush and his cadre thought he would be a great President.
Cheney made the case for War, based on faulty intelligence, that he was provided by an Iranian double agent through his own private intelligence office. Iran benefits.
Syria squashes coup attempt: German newspaperAn attempt to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad's government was thwarted without the international community's ever having noticed, Die Welt reported yesterday, quoting high ranking German intelligence sources.
The report stated that Assef Shawkat, Syrian military intelligence chief and Assad's brother-in-law, planned to seize control of the government while the president was hosting a meeting of the Arab League in Damascus in February. Shawkat was detained along with a hundred other Syrian intelligence officers.
According to Die Welt the killing of Mughniyah had been planned by Shawkat's associates, as retaliation for the disclosure of the planned rebellion.
Two months ago former Syrian vice president Abdel Halim Khaddam told a Lebanese news network that Assad had decided to take advantage of Mughniyah's death in order to dismiss Shawkat and to appoint his nephew Hafez Makhlouf in his stead.
According to Khaddam, the reason for Shawkat's dismissal was that the latter, after having been chosen to lead the investigation following Mughniyah's ( pictured ) murder, proved that the explosion that caused the Hezbollah leader's death had taken place inside the car, and that the killers had come from Syria.
This version contradicted the one that Assad had ordered published, according to which Mughniyah was killed by the explosion of a gas tank in his car.
Claims of Syrian intelligence officers' involvement in Mughniyah's death have been voiced recently. Lebanese papers claimed that Syrian intelligence had broken into the homes of two of its officers on March 29, and killed them with shots to the head. The paper claimed the officers had been murdered due to their involvement in the targeted killing....
Saudi Arabia's Okaz newspaper reported on February 24 that Mughniyah's widow, who is Iranian was extremely angered by the murder of her husband and blamed it on "treason and treachery" without expanding what she meant and whom she had in mind as the traitors .
Mughniyeh's widow requested immediate departure from Syria to either Lebanon or Iran , but the Iranian embassy decided to take her to Tehran away from the Lebanese media.
After reaching Tehran Mughniyah's widow, accused the Syrian regime of involvement in the murder. She said "This is why the Syrian regime has refused the help of Iran and Hezbollah in the investigation of the murder."
The General Secretariat of the Damascus Declaration also accused the Syrian regime on March 17 of involvement in the assassination of Mughniyah....
Let's try for a moment to put ourselves in the mind of Brig. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the commander of the Quds Force of Iran's Revolutionary Guard. For it is the soft-spoken Soleimani, not Iran's bombastic president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who plays a decisive role in his nation's confrontation with the United States.Soleimani represents the sharp point of the Iranian spear. He is responsible for Iran's covert activities in Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan and other battlegrounds. He oversees the regime's relations with its militant proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas. His elite, secretive wing of the Revolutionary Guard is identified as a terrorist organization by the Bush administration, but he is also Iran's leading strategist on foreign policy. He reports personally to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and his budget (mostly in cash) comes directly from the supreme leader's office.
Soleimani is confident about Iran's rising power in the region, according to an Arab official who met recently with him. He sees an America that is weakened by the war in Iraq but still potent. He has told visitors that U.S. and Iranian goals in Iraq are similar, despite the rhetoric of confrontation. But he has expressed no interest in direct, high-level talks. The Quds Force commander prefers to run out the clock on the Bush administration, hoping that the next administration will be more favorable to Iran's interests.
"The level of confidence of these [Quds Force] guys is that they are it, and everything else is marginal," says the Arab who meets regularly with Soleimani.
Soleimani has been adept at turning up the heat in Iraq, then lowering the temperature when it suits Iran's interest. A good example was the Basra campaign in March, when Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki attacked the Mahdi Army, the Shiite militia headed by Moqtada al-Sadr. Though the Iranians had been backing Sadr, they made a quick switch to supporting Maliki. It was Soleimani himself who brokered the cease-fire that restored calm in Basra.
The simultaneous support for Maliki and Sadr is characteristic of Soleimani, according to people who know him well. Rather than pick a single ally, as Americans tend to do, he will choose at least two. By riding several horses at once, he maximizes Iran's opportunities and reduces its risks.
Soleimani's opportunism was evident during the heavy shelling of the Green Zone in March. The Iranians had supplied their Mahdi Army allies in Sadr City with very powerful 240mm rockets and mortars, and they had bracketed their targets in the Green Zone so precisely that U.S. casualties were rising sharply.
After a particularly heavy day of shelling, Gen. David Petraeus sent Soleimani a message -- "Stop shooting at the Green Zone." The message was conveyed verbally by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani. The Quds Force commander didn't react immediately. But the heavy mortar fire on the Green Zone soon tapered off. Iran had flexed its muscles and demonstrated America's vulnerability, and then opted for a tactical retreat.
This ebb and flow of Iranian tactics was noted by Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Baghdad. He told journalists Thursday that the Iranians have withdrawn Mahdi Army fighters from Basra and Sadr City, but it isn't clear yet whether they have decided that "the militia era is over" in Iraq or are just making a "tactical pause."
The question for Soleimani-watchers is how he will play his hand in the growing confrontation over Iran's nuclear program. The Bush administration seems to have decided on a course of escalating pressure against Tehran during its remaining months in office. The Iranians, while maintaining a tough line on the nuclear issue, as well as in Iraq and Lebanon, appear wary of an all-out confrontation.
So imagine that you are Qassem Soleimani, commander of a covert Iranian army deployed across the Middle East: You doubt the Bush administration would run the risk of a military strike against Iran, but you can't be sure. You think America can't afford to play chicken in an election year, but you can't be certain of that, either. You think Iran is on a roll, but you know how quickly that advantage can be squandered by unwise choices. You know that Arabs, even in Iraq, have become peeved at what they see as meddling and overreaching by Tehran.
So you watch and wait. You give ground where necessary, but you prepare to strike back, as devastatingly as possible -- and on your own terms, not those of your adversaries.....but we know first hand that the USA has in the past brokered deals with the Iranians prior to elections in USA,
and deals are always in the cards this election season as never before......especially with Ryan Crocker at hand......
A statement issued by the Damascus Declaration headed by former MP Maamun al-Homsi stated: "It is our duty to expose the crimes of the Syrian regime and specifically the killing of Imad Mughniyah and the deception that accompanied this crime."
General Sanchez publishes a book accusing Bush of gross incompetence and dereliction of duty as Commander and Chief for the Iraq fiasco. Sanchez states that Bush must be held accountable.