Gonzalez was chosen by Human Rights First for the 2009 Human Rights Award in recognition of his courageous defense of human rights in Colombia. He will be honored at an event hosted by legendary newsman Tom Brokaw. Instead of being part of the celebration in New York, Gonzalez may be thousands of miles away. His visa is being held up by the U.S. government, apparently because of false charges lodged against him by the Colombian authorities – despite U.S. agreement that those charges amount to nothing.

“Rather than welcoming Gonzalez, the U.S. government is letting him languish in a bureaucratic black hole.” said Elisa Massimino, CEO and Executive Director of Human Rights First. “The State Department has long supported Gonzalez’ work as well as his effort to fight the very trumped up criminal charges that may now prevent him from entering the United States. Yet, almost four months after Gonzalez first applied for his visa, his application is stalled in a seemingly endless bureaucratic back and forth between the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security and other government agencies. This sends the wrong message to the Colombian authorities and undercuts U.S. policy to support Colombian human rights defenders who are under attack.”

Gonzalez is a groundbreaking student activist and regional coordinator of the Political Prisoners Solidarity Committee in Colombia where he has worked to promote access to justice for prisoners and victims of Colombia’s conflict. Ironically, Gonzalez’s advocacy led to his own arrest. He was detained for more than a year on the false charge of being a guerilla leader, and now faces seven more years in prison if his test-case appeal to Colombia’s Supreme Court is unsuccessful.

Both the State Department and various UN bodies – including the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Colombia – have expressed concern that his prosecution is baseless and intended to discredit him and undermine his work. Earlier this year, Gonzalez received support from the State Department to appeal the criminal investigation to Colombia’s Supreme Court. And, in 2007, the State Department included Gonzalez in its human rights country report citing his baseless prosecution as being emblematic of “the government’s attempts to harass human rights defenders.”

The Colombian courts have confirmed that Gonzalez is free to travel to the US.

“Gonzalez’s case is just one example of a systematic problem in Colombia. Colombian activists from all walks of life are routinely subjected to trumped-up charges intended to stigmatize and silence them,” said Massimino. In February 2009, Human Rights First released a groundbreaking report In the Dock and Under the Gun: Baseless Prosecutions of Human Rights Defenders in Colombia, that, for the first time, documented the widespread and systematic nature of the problem. Last month, after an extensive visit to Colombia, and a meeting with Gonzalez, the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders decried the problem of unfounded criminal proceedings against Colombian activists.

—
This article was first published at JKHanok.com
The article can be re-published on your site as long as this message remains intact.

This work by JK Hanok Press Release Center is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
—

The above individuals have committed no crimes. They were only exercising their rights to freedom of expression by peaceful means. Vietnam is a member of the UN Commission on Human Rights in which the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 19, clearly protects the right of the individual to “seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, or through any other media of his or her choice”. In addition, according to Article 9 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile,” and The Socialist Republic of Vietnam’s Constitution itself declares the “right of freedom expression, right of freedom press, right of freedom exchange information and right to form an association and right to demonstration” in article 69. However, the Vietnam Communist Party has ignored these basic human rights, continued to crackdown and used harsh sentences to silence pro-democracy activists.

The People’s Democratic Party strongly condemns the trials and sentencing, staged by the Vietnamese Communist Party. We call upon our members and the Vietnamese people at home and abroad to continue fighting for Human Rights, Freedom and Democracy for Vietnam.

Tran, Nam
Spokesperson of the People’s Democratic Party

—
This article was first published at JKHanok.com
The article can be re-published on your site as long as this message remains intact.

This work by JK Hanok Press Release Center is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
—

Local authorities are spending up to £1.3m each on private barristers’ and solicitors’ fees and up to £1.2m on their own staff’s time attempting to resist the fight for fair wages.

A survey of 50 authorities by public service union UNISON found that more than £11.5m has been spent to obstruct equal pay – a figure the union believes is “the tip of the iceberg”.

Using the Freedom of Information Act, the union discovered that among the most free-spending authorities is Sandwell Council which has paid out more than £1.3m to external solicitors and barristers after refusing to negotiate equal pay with UNISON. Coventry’s bill for external legal help was more than £1.2m.

Some local authorities have also spent hundreds of thousands on their in-house legal teams. Leeds, for instance has admitted incurring nearly £1.2m in internal costs and paying £300,000 to outside lawyers.

Sandwell council has spent £124 per female employee resisting equal pay, while the equivalent figure at Rotherham is £115 and in Coventry is £104.

The spending is in shocking contrast to the earnings of some of the low-paid members of UNISON. Some local government employees including cleaners, cooks, and care assistants earn as little £6.30 per hour, or £12,145 each year.

All this public money has been spent despite the introduction of the national “Single Status” agreement in 1997 which sought to end the gap between the pay of men and women in council jobs, which were either identical or required the same level of expertise or effort.

Ten years down the line, there are still far too many councils who are resisting equal pay through the courts.

Dave Prentis, UNISON’s General Secretary, said it was a “national disgrace” that local authorities were spending so much money on fighting to keep women’s wages down. Mr Prentis believes the figures that UNISON has unearthed under-estimate the total costs – because some councils “couldn’t or wouldn’t” reveal their expenditure.

He points out that others were only able or willing to provide information covering external spending over the last few years. He believes that a number of local authorities did their best to come up with the lowest possible figure when answering UNISON’s questions.

“What a waste of money. Councils are stuffing money into lawyers’ pockets to put off the inevitable. Expensive lawyers are raising tiny technical points and fighting issues the councils have already been advised they will lose. Cases drag on for years and women have died by the time legal arguments are resolved. Taxpayers’ money is being poured down the drain and low-paid women continue to be underpaid for jobs that society simply couldn’t function without.”

Brian Critchley, lecturer in employment relations at London Metropolitan University, said:

”One of the more shocking things to come out of this exercise is the total lack of coherence among councils on their policy towards equal pay.

“There appears to be no connection between allocation of resources and potential equal pay liabilities. It seems that some councils would rather defend the status quo than face the inevitable.”

COUNCILS SPENDING IN EXCESS OF £50,000 ON EXTERNAL LEGAL ADVICE/LITIGATION

Sandwell: £1,323,363.99 Coventry: £1,237,870 Cumbria: £869,448.03 (internal £421,300.42) Bury: £607,477.96 Rotherham: £473,689.96 Northumberland: £400,000 Leicester: £392,115.99 (internal £30,919.93) Leeds: £298,648.10 (internal £1,170,151.71) York: £279,802.27 Birmingham: £278,662.80 (internal £916,892)) Gateshead: £263,165.32 (since 2003 only) Cardiff: £216,332 Dudley: £167,142 Hartlepool: £165,788.75 (since 2003 only) Newport City: £138,926.47 Nottingham City Council: £131,653.60 Salford: £101,184.53 Liverpool: £90,478.89 Durham (Derwentside): £90,000

Merthyr Tydfil: £82,446.22 Brighton and Hove: £77,999.78 Flintshire: £76,695.72 Bridgend: £76,420.91 (internally 226.40 hours) Walsall: £72,975.16 (excl VAT) (since 2003) (in-house £81,762.50) Norfolk CC: £62,504.63 (internal £23,145.05) Pembrokeshire: £61,000 (internally estimated £5,250) Ceredigion: £55,184.45 Wolverhampton: £54,353.04 (internal £7,868.52) Southampton: £53,422.83 (plus VAT of £8,887.17) (internal £8,000)

COUNCILS WHO HAVE SPENT THE MOST ON INTERNAL LEGAL ADVICE – ONLY A SMALL MINORITY SUPPLIED AN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION)

Leeds: £1,170,151.71 (external £298,648.10) Birmingham City: £916,892 (external £278,662.80) Cumbria: £421,300.42 (external £869,448.03) Oldham: £164,682.30 (external £30,738) Lancashire: £157,320.90 (external £33,618.75) – figures from June 2004 only. Bolton: £100,467.98 (external £40,033.87) Walsall: £81,762.50 (external £72,975.16 (excl VAT)

COUNCILS WHO COULD NOT SUPPLY INFORMATION OR WANTED IN EXCESS OF £450 TO SUPPLY IT

Hackney, Central Bedfordshire, Waltham Forest, Trafford, Warrington, Lewisham, Blackpool, Staffordshire, Caerphilly, Stevenage NO EXTERNAL COSTS

Telford & Wrekin: £8,910.00 (internal) Haringey: £18,860.08 (internal)

NO COSTS AT ALL

East Lindsey District Council, Anglesey County Council, Isle of Wight, Wirral Council, Guildford, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, Lincolnshire and Herefordshire

Editor’s notes: In 1997 unions signed a national deal with local authority employers covering more than a million workers to even out disparities in pay and conditions between white collar and blue collar workers and between male and female council employees. Individual councils and unions then attempted to thrash out pay systems to suit their own local circumstances. No government money was made available to fund the new pay arrangements because the incoming Labour Government adopted budgets laid down by the previous Tory administration.

—
This article was first published at JKHanok.com
The article can be re-published on your site as long as this message remains intact.

This work by JK Hanok Press Release Center is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
—

WMO Whistleblower Awarded Nearly $500,000
UN Weather Office Found to have Harassed, Defamed and Wrongfully Terminated Chief Internal Auditor

GENEVA, SWITZERLAND; 7 October 2009 — in what is believed to be its largest judgment to date in its 64 year existence, the International Labour Office Administrative Tribunal (ILOAT) recently ordered the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) to pay its former internal auditor Maria do Rosario Veiga nearly USD$500,000 in exemplary, material and moral damages, lost salary and allowances after it found that she was harassed, defamed and wrongfully terminated by the WMO’s Secretary-General Michel Jarraud and/or other WMO officials in the course of performing her statutory audit duties. The ILOAT’s 70 page Judgment N° 2861 can be found at: http://tinyurl.com/veiga-v-WMO .
Ms. Veiga, 49, a Portuguese/Italian national and experienced professional auditor who had worked for WMO for 4 years, and previously more than 5 years for another UN agency, was suddenly fired in November 2006 after she refused to discontinue her investigations into or otherwise cover-up an internal embezzlement scheme in which some USD$3.5 million was stolen by senior WMO officials and used in part to apparently rig the outcome of the 2003 election of the organisation’s chief executive, which election resulted in the appointment of its current Secretary General, Michel Jarraud, a French national, who at the time had been the WMO’s Deputy Secretary-General.
The WMO is a UN specialized agency headquartered in Geneva, and is the co-founder and sponsor of the UN’s global warming body, UNIPCC. In April 2007, nine US Congressmen wrote a letter to the US Comptroller General, demanding that he conduct an investigation into Ms Veiga’s termination as well as her whistleblower claims, citing the US government’s contribution to the WMO of more than USD$10 million over the prior decade. Such request was ignored by the then UN Comptroller General who was interestingly elected to the Independent Audit Advisory Committee (IAAC) of the United Nations later in 2007, and no such investigation ever took place. As of the present date, none of the senior WMO officials responsible for the actions that led to the recent ILOAT award have been sanctioned or punished. Despite wide press coverage of Ms. Veiga’s allegations, and the initiation of a criminal corruption investigation by the Geneva Attorney General, in early 2007 Mr. Jarraud was over-whelmingly elected to another term by the WMO Congress.
In a companion case, Judgment N° 2742, decided in July 2008, the ILOAT awarded Ms. Veiga CHF 79,000, bringing her total award paid by WMO from its public funds to more than USD$ 550,000. As the ILOAT refused to order Ms. Veiga’s reinstatement or otherwise compensate her for lost future earnings, she intends to pursue her rights to be made whole through several companion claims that include a criminal complaint pending against her harassers in Geneva, an alien tort claims act pending before the US Federal Appeals Court of the 2nd Circuit, and a claim before the European Court of Human Rights challenging the WMO’s immunity from Swiss law.

—
This article was first published at JKHanok.com
The article can be re-published on your site as long as this message remains intact.

This work by JK Hanok Press Release Center is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
—

Author: Jagdish R. Singh (Roy) was born June 29, 1953 in the town of Blenheim on the island of Leguan, Guyana. In 1977, he immigrated to Canada where he studied spiritual beliefs and ancient myths. Since then, he has been actively writing fiction and non-fiction themes that are thoughtful and informative. He is the author of the fiction novels Adventures of the Homeless and The True Self, as well as a collection of essays titled Earthly Tribulations, and fourteen fictional stories under the title Pandora’s Heartaches.

Author’s website: http://www.jagdishraisingh.com

• Book Title: Strange Misfortunes
• Author: Jagdish R. Singh
• ISBN: 978-1-60594-346-6

—
This article was first published at JKHanok.com
The article can be re-published on your site as long as this message remains intact.

This work by JK Hanok Press Release Center is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
—

The Children’s Commissioner for England, established through the Children’s Act 2004, gives a voice to all children and young people – especially the disadvantaged and the vulnerable. Independent of government, it is a critical means of raising the profile of the issues that affect children in England, by championing their interests and bringing their concerns and views into the national arena.Maggie Atkinson has been nominated following a competitive and rigorous selection process, validated by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. Today, Children’s Secretary Ed Balls is inviting the Children and Families Select Committee to hold a pre-appointment hearing and to report on Maggie Atkinson’s suitability for the post. The Secretary of State will carefully consider the Select Committee’s views. This is in line with new proposals to increase democratic scrutiny of key public appointments.

Editor’s Notes
This press notice relates to ‘England’
1. The Children’s Commissioner’s function is established in the Children’s Act 2004. The first Commissioner, Sir Al Aynsley-Green was appointed by the Secretary of State on 1 March 2005.

2. The Children’s Commissioner is an independent champion of children promoting awareness of their views and interests across all sectors of society, including central government, local government and private industry. 3. Maggie Atkinson has been Director of Children’s Services in Gateshead since 2003. She was President of the ADCS (Association of Directors of Children’s Services) until March 2008, and is currently chair of the National Expert Group on the Children’s Workforce and national chair for the new Centre of Excellence in Outcomes (C4EO). 4. The government’s proposals for pre-appointment hearings are set out in the Governance of Britain White Paper. 5. Pre-appointment scrutiny hearings enable select committees to take evidence from candidates for certain key public appointments before they are appointed. Hearings are in public and involve the select committee publishing a report setting out their views on the candidate’s suitability for the post. Pre-appointment hearings are non-binding but ministers will consider the committee’s views before deciding whether to proceed with the appointment. 6. The Governance of Britain White Paper states that pre-appointment hearings should be held for posts that exercise statutory or other powers in relation to protecting the public’s rights and interests – as well as for posts that play a role in the regulation and administration of the appointments process itself. The list of posts suitable for pre-appointment hearings is published in the government’s Response to the Liaison Committee’s First Special Report of Session 2007-08. (Liaison Committee, First Special Report of Session 2007-08, Pre-appointment hearings by select committees: Government Response, HC 594)Contact Details
Public Enquiries 0870 000 2288, info@dcsf.gsi.gov.uk

—
This article was first published at JKHanok.com
The article can be re-published on your site as long as this message remains intact.

This work by JK Hanok Press Release Center is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
—

The final details of the Government’s scheme to save organisations money on fuel bills and to reduce carbon emissions have been unveiled today by the Department of Energy and Climate Change.

The Carbon Reduction Commitment Energy Efficiency Scheme is a new regulatory incentive to improve energy efficiency in large public and private sector organisations. Large energy users in business and the public sector will be required to take part in the scheme from 1st April 2010.

Following extensive consultation with businesses and trade bodies, DECC has made some improvements to the scheme:

• To smooth the introduction of the scheme and to help ease the upfront costs, organisations will only have to report emissions in the first year (2010/11). In subsequent years organisations will have to buy allowances corresponding to their emissions from energy use, and then surrender them by the end of the year.
• In the second year (2011/12) extra weighting will be given to organisations which take action early to improve energy efficiency.
• Recognition will be given to organisations which use onsite renewable energy like wind turbines or solar panels by publishing the increased carbon savings from such measures.
• Organisations will be given greater flexibility in how they participate. Subsidiaries who are large enough to qualify in own right (at least 6000MWh) may opt to do so separately from their organisational group.
• Given the primary focus of the scheme is energy efficiency, the CRC will now be known as CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme.

The CRC will help to ensure that large organisations play their full role in contributing to our emissions reductions of at least 34% on 1990 levels by 2020 through improved energy efficiency.

The scheme is mandatory and will save participants around £1billion per year by 2020 through cost effective energy efficiency measures that are not yet being taken up.

By 2020 the scheme is expected to have delivered emissions savings of at least 4.4 Mt CO2 per year.

The scheme will target organisations whose annual half hourly metered (HHM) electricity use is at least 6,000 Megawatt hours (MWh) will qualify for the scheme – typically those that spend £0.5 million a year on electricity. The Environment Agency will publish the qualification and registration guidance for potential CRC participants by November.

The basic timeline for CRC remains;

First phase – The three year ‘Introductory Phase’ starts in April 2010. An unlimited number of allowances will be available at a fixed price of £12/tCO2. From the second compliance year onwards, participants will annually have to purchase allowances, monitor energy use, report emissions and surrender allowances. Participants will also receive a revenue recycling payment each year.

Phase 2 –From 2013 Government will cap the number of allowances available each year and all allowances will be auctioned. The cap will be set taking into account advice from the Committee on Climate Change which they will provide in 2010.

-ENDS-

Case Studies

The below organisations fall within the remit for CRC and would be happy to be contacted for media purposes;

• HILTON HOTELS
  Press Office contacts 020 7856 8076 or email: Jules.Kerby@hilton.com
• GUY’S AND ST THOMAS’ NHS FOUNDATION TRUST
  Press Office contacts 020 7188 5577 or email: press@gstt.nhs.uk
• THE NATIONAL THEATRE
  Press Office contact details: 020 7452 3235 or email:   press@nationaltheatre.org.uk
• LONDON FIRE BRIGADE
  Press Office contacts: 020 8536 5922 or email: press@london-fire.gov.uk

—
This article was first published at JKHanok.com
The article can be re-published on your site as long as this message remains intact.

This work by JK Hanok Press Release Center is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
—

GCHQ has two important missions: Signals Intelligence and Information Assurance. Our Signals Intelligence work provides vital information to support Government in the fields of national security, military operations, law enforcement and economic well being. The intelligence we provide is at the heart of the struggle against terrorism and also contributes to the prevention and detection of serious crime. GCHQ supplies intelligence to the UK armed forces, wherever they may be deployed in the world. Information Assurance is about protecting Government data – communications and information systems – from hackers and other threats.

GCHQ is heavily dependent on technology in order to execute our global missions. An increasingly rapidly changing digital world demands speedy innovation in our technical systems, allowing us to operate at internet pace, as the information age allows our targets to. One of our greatest challenges is maintaining our capability in the face of the growth in internet-based communications and voice over internet telephony. We must reinvest continuously to keep up with the methods that are used by those who threaten the UK and its interests. Just as our predecessors at Bletchley Park mastered the use of the first computers, today, partnering with industry, we need to master the use of internet technologies and skills that will enable us to keep one step ahead of the threats. This is what mastering the internet is about. GCHQ is not developing technology to enable the monitoring of all internet use and phone calls in Britain, or to target everyone in the UK. Similarly, GCHQ has no ambitions, expectations or plans for a database or databases to store centrally all communications data in Britain.

Because we rely upon maintaining an advantage over those that would damage UK interests, it is usually the case that we will not disclose information about our operations and methods. People sometimes assume that secrecy comes at the price of accountability but nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, GCHQ is subject to rigorous parliamentary and judicial oversight (the Intelligence and Security Committee of parliamentarians, and two senior members of the judiciary: the Intelligence Services Commissioner and the Interception of Communications Commissioner) and works entirely within a legal framework that complies with the European Convention on Human Rights.

The new technology that GCHQ is developing is designed to work under the existing legal framework. It is an evolution of current capability within current accountability and oversight arrangements The Intelligence Services Act 1994 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 underpin activities at GCHQ – both existing systems and those we are planning and building at the moment. The purposes for which interception may be permitted are set out explicitly in the legislation: national security, safeguarding our economic well being and the prevention and detection of serious crime. Interception for other purposes is not lawful and we do not do it. GCHQ does not target anyone indiscriminately – all our activities are proportionate to the threats against which we seek to guard and are subject to tests on those grounds by the Commissioners. The legislation also sets out the procedures for Ministers to authorise interception; GCHQ follows these meticulously. GCHQ only acts when it is necessary and proportionate to do so; GCHQ does not spy at will.

Find out more here: GCHQ

Press Office/Public Affairs

Email: pressoffice@gchq.gsi.gov.uk.
Telephone: 01242 221491 x 33847
Address: Press Office, Room A3a, GCHQ, Hubble Road, Cheltenham, GL51 0EX

—
This article was first published at JKHanok.com
The article can be re-published on your site as long as this message remains intact.

This work by JK Hanok Press Release Center is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
—

http://lpcyu.newsvine.com/_news/2009/07/02/2992783-irrefutable-proof-the-hague-court-
cannot-legitimately-prosecute-karadzic-case

War crimes tribunals are only as effective as they are true tools of international social
justice for bearing genuine historical record.If anyone doubts what I am saying,
reexamine the political show trials of both Jesus and Socrates.

In the case of Dr Karadzic currently in the Hague, my eye witness testimony proves the
Hague was never a true tool of international social justice from its very
conceptions/construction phase.

This legal technicality indicates the Hague must dismiss charges against Dr karadzic and
others awaiting trials in the Hague jail; like it or not.
If American criminal Madoff stood in front of court that was as seriously corrupted,
flawed and compromised as the Hague, he would have to be acquitted or transferred to
another court.

Unfortunately for the The Signatures Of the Rome Statute United Nations member states
instituting the ICC housed at the Hague, in Karadzic and other Hague case, there is no
other international court capable; even if there was, the same United Nations member
states that spoke about trading judicial appointments and verdicts for funding when I
attended the 2001 ICC Preparatory Meetings at the UN in Manhattan would be morally
incapable of constructing another court to hear cases.

My suggestion is to transfer immediately Dr Karadzic and others awaiting trial at the
Hague back to Serbia and their respective countries to decide how to proceed next.
Sending Pinochet back to Chile (The Pinochet Precedent) combines both international
legal standing and international legal precedent enough to return Dr Karadzic to Serbia
for further actions if any.

This owing to the my eye witness testimony insofar as the Hague’s criminal corruption. It
also gives appropriate legal standing for Karadzic’s attorney for immediately filing a new
obstruction of social legal jurisprudence in his case based on my comments on the entire
matter.

J
—————————————————————————————–
Irrefutable Proof the Hague Court Cannot Legitimately Prosecute Karadzic Case

And how is it, Richard Holbrook (Lying Moralist), the present Obama administration of
my own country, the United States, and/or any other UN member state can stand anyone
being tried at the Hague (ICC) court at all, which I testify to, is an institution at its very
conception stages was based upon trading bribery for judicial appointments and verdicts
(?)

Why is the entire world so quite and mentally bent on covering this fact up (?) How about
an answer NBC, CBS AND CNN (?)I know you have seen my blogs because my book is written all over your own news sites (!)

I witnessed with my own eyes and ears when attending the 2001 Preparatory Meetings to
establish an newly emergent International Criminal Court, the exact caliber of criminal
corruption running so very deeply at the Hague, that it was a perfectly viable topic of
legitimate conversation in those meetings I attended to debate trading verdicts AND
judicial appointments, for monetary funding.

Jilly wrote:*The rep from Spain became distraught and when her country’s proposal was
not taken to well by the chair of the meeting , then Spain argued in a particularly loud
and noticably strongly vocal manner, “Spain (my country) strongly believes if we
contribute most financial support to the Hague’s highest court, that ought to give us and
other countries feeding it financially MORE direct power over its decisions.”

J STarr
*

*I am glad to continue receiving your latest news on the status conference in Beograd (!)
I am all for closing down the Hague ASAP and rallying international support to do so. I
still vividly remember whereby Spain was one of the most vocal countries in the ICC
Preparatory Meetings in 2001 at the UN NYC: The lady representative from Spain
wearing glasses with shortish i hair sat in the far corner at the table to my left arguing
that Spain wanted to give the ICC more money to directly influence its “decisions over
verdicts and judges,” in particular…

Jill Starr in NJ

And close the Hague down since it has almost reached its ’term limits.”
They can bow out with a touch of graceful diplomacy.
Read more: http://lpcyu.pnn.com/articles/show/48141-irrefutable-proof-hague-is-corrupt
-court#ixzz0QoY4lMVz

Make sure to read my other blogs on the topic: http://lpcyu.instablogs.com/ and,
http://sites.google.com/site/jillstarrsite/what-it-s-like-to-chill-with-the-most-ruthless-men-
in-the-world-ratko-mladic-and-radovan-karadzic-confessions-of-a-female-war-crimes-
investigator

AND EVEN MOER HERE->

http://lpcyu.instablogs.com/entry/nato-says-the-hague-tribunal-or-icty-belongs-to-nato-
truth-bites-for-te-hague-lately/
(Truth Really BITES the Corrupt ICTY Hague Court Lately!)

By Jill Starr ( Me) on July 15, 2009 13:47
http://lpcyu.instablogs.com/entry/the-icty-hagues-highest-court-proven-to-be-a-kangaroo
-court/

What It’s Like to Chill with Whom the Rest of the World Considers To Be the Most
Ruthless Men in the World: Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic: Confessions of a
Female War Crimes Investigator
http://lpcyu.instablogs.com/entry/updated-edition-of-mladic-karadzic-book/

———————————– I hate to disappoint everyone, but, after chilling
out with Karadzic and Mladic, I don’t think that they are the most “ruthless men in the
world at all.” I thought it would make a catchy title for my book; but it is not morally
correct to call them this; I don’t think it is true. Jill Starr in NJ USA
By lpcyu on July 30, 2009 22:18

—
This article was first published at JKHanok.com
The article can be re-published on your site as long as this message remains intact.

This work by JK Hanok Press Release Center is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
—

Chicago, IL, October 05, 2009 — UPDATE TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 RELEASE: Among several 2010 Budget items discussed in the White House Statement of Administration Position (SAP) released last week was Boeing’s C-17 Globemaster III Strategic/Tactical airlifter, and yet again a desire was voiced to shut down production of this critical aircraft citing “DoD analyses”.

In clear indication of a last minute ramping up of efforts to terminate C-17 production, an amendment was introduced on September 29 by those in opposition to the aircraft’s continued existence. Lawmakers defeated that effort by a 64/36 margin.

A second amendment presented with the intent to strip the 2010 Defense Budget of USD2.5 billion covering 10 more C-17s, will be considered Wednesday, October 7, 2009,

“We were in full expectation of this move,” says Myron D. Stokes, Managing Member of Global HeavyLift Holdings, LLC, a Florida incorporated, Bloomfield Hills, MI based DLA-listed firm (www.ccr.gov) , “And it is precisely why we restated our position via the 9/28 and 9/30 releases.

“Since those opposed to C-17 continue to cite “internal DoD analyses” we ask, respectfully, that they produce same. We are, of course, cognizant of the fact that a certain mythological place of intense heat would be altered by cryogenic intervention before such data were produced. Short story: It does not exist.”

An “Intellectual” Assault

“What many who support C-17 don’t really understand,” says Stokes, “Is that an intellectual assault was launched against this aircraft beginning with the GAO and Congressionally debunked 2005/2006 Mobility Capabilities Studies (MCS) and the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) which repeated MCS assertions of there were ‘enough’ C-17s, coupled with ancient and notoriously unreliable C-5 Galaxys. The GAO found the study analytics were profoundly flawed, and based on unsustainable, unrealistic conflict assumptions post 9/11.

“We must re-emphasize this is the only data to which opposition parties can be possibly referring.

“The brilliance of this type of assault,” Stokes continued,” is that it’s resistant, if not invulnerable, to typical responses. It must be understood that the only effective response is a response in kind. Meaning, it was most appropriate to craft and use the still officially unreleased Department of Commerce C-17 Industrial Base Impacts Study; it was approriate to present ‘Transformational Recapitalization’ architecture as a means to forever eliminate traditional budgetary wrangling; it was appropriate to highlight the findings of the McCaffrey Report. All of these documents resoundly neutralize the arguments of the SECDEF, the SECAF, the good Senator, and all those who are in support of this ill-advised activity againt C-17.

“We say again, these efforts are designed to make the world safe for retro-fitted C-5s and yet-to-fly Airbus/EADS A-400M, the latter of which EADS desperately hopes will be acquired by the USAF. Unfortunately, the only way that Lockheed-Martin and EADS will get their wish is if Boeing C-17, and perhaps Boeing itself (a very real possibility if the Tanker deal is given to the Europeans) is killed.

“An ‘inconvenient truth’, if you will.”

The McCaffrey Report 2007

“As we noted in our May 28, 2009 release, C-17 is not only absolutely essential to current and anticipated force projection requirements in a world wherein conventional and asymmetric conflict potential exists concomitantly,” said Stokes, “but to our plans implementing a US/NATO controlled Heavy and Outsized (HOM) industry utilizing modestly modified variants of this superlative airlifter.

“I daresay that data from several and quite significant resources, inclusive of the limited availability 2005/2006 Department of Commerce C-17 Industrial Base Impacts Study, strongly, if not overwhelmingly, suggests the direction and viewpoints articulated by our Washington colleagues relative to C-17’s continued existence is at best flawed, and at worst, not reflective of the great responsibilities conferred upon them by the office in which they serve.

“It should be noted that while we have the greatest respect for the offices of the SECDEF, SECAF and those to whom they report, we feel it necessary to again invoke the wisdom, past and present, of DoD personnel such as the late VADM Arthur K. Cebrowski, whose vast experience and knowledge cannot be ignored. In this instance, we feel it appropriate to highlight the conclusions of decorated U.S. Army 4-Star General (Ret’d) Barry R. McCaffrey, Adjunct Professor of International Affairs, United States Military Academy (USMA) West Point, as outlined in an “After Action” Report following visits to Nellis and Scott Air Force Bases 14-17 August, 2007.”

The report was designed to summarize assessments of USAF capabilities and resources in the face of current, emergent and projected threats to national security. General McCaffrey’s comments on C-17 are as follows:

2nd — The C-17 Globemaster III.

• We must create the strategic national military airlift and air-to-air refuel capability (600+ C-17 aircraft) to project national military and humanitarian power in the global environment. We currently have an inadequate capability with 150 aircraft supported by an aging refueling fleet. The C-5 aircraft must be retired—these planes are shot. The Army must back off the dubious proposition that they will size their ground combat force around the volume and lift metrics of the C-130 — and instead use the C-17 as the sizing template.

• The Rumsfeld doctrine postulated bringing home deployed Army and Air Force capabilities from Europe, Okinawa, and Korea. This seismic strategic shift was unexamined and not debated by Congress or the American people. We are bringing home ground and air strike assets thousands of miles— from basing infrastructure paid for by allies— to unprepared US launch platforms. If we are to pose a serious deterrent capability in the dangerous world arena— then we must credibly be able to project power back into future combat areas to sustain allies at risk.

• The C-17 represents the capacity to carry out this strategic power projection mission —as well as providing intra-theater logistics and humanitarian lift for pin point distribution of thousands of truck load equivalents of supply per day.

• The C-17 is a global national transportation asset— not merely a military or Air Force system.

The whole of the report is accessible via the link
http://www.mccaffreyassociates.com/pages/documents…
and should be considered a “must read” by all concerned.

Knowledge is Power

“I will respond preemptively to those who are quick to dismiss the views and analytics crafted by retired DoD personnel as ‘irrelevant and inapplicable’, by saying that such assertions are sophomoric, unsustainable, without merit and wholly dismissive of the Dr. W. Edwards Deming advocated pursuit of profound knowledge,” says Stokes. “To be sure, we benefit from applying accumulated knowledge, as has been evident since humankind first saw the need to record and preserve what was learned. The Library of Alexandria is an ancient and extraordinary example of this premise.”

Tanker Procurement Process Observations

Further commenting on the recent re-release of USAF Tanker competitive requirements after Boeing’s successful protest to the GAO against EADS/Airbus, Stokes conveys the viewpoints of several academic, government and industrial associates that the need to preserve C-17 is as critically important as the necessity of having the tanker requirement fulfilled by a true US firm. “It must be designed, developed, engineered, manufactured and sustained in the United States. This is not jingoism, this is not nationalism, this is not representative of a disturbing naivete as concerns the so-called “new globality”, but rather, a recognition that the country’s industrial base must be maintained. Moreover, it must be OWNED and controlled by American firms with a strongly supportive role by the US government as is common practice by other industrialized nations.

“This is to say, even if the A330-based Tanker were indeed designed, engineered and manufactured here, the question at the end of the day is ‘Where does the money go?’ Answer: To overseas bank accounts. Also, ‘Would there be any guarantees that manufacturing and design would remain on these shores in the event of a global economic schism (again) thereby resulting in calls by company stakeholders to shrink the company’s global footprint in the interests of ‘fiduciary responsibility?’

Based on the recorded activities of international corporations, the answer is no.

“The idea that obvious illegalities in the form of WTO disallowed EU subsidies designed to give EADS/Airbus ( Northrop-Grumman, with its extraordinary history of aircraft development, is nothing more than, sadly, a front to give the illusion of “Americaness” to their overtures) a competitive advantage in price is dismissed by DoD procurement officers as irrelevant or “having no bearing in the ultimate decision” (paraphrased) is suggesting a departure from logic, reason, conventional wisdom and a complete lack of of understanding that the US defense and industrial bases are one and the same.”

Stokes suggests a much needed expansion of the DoD’s paraphrased assertion that “we are in pursuit of the best value for the warfighter” would include ‘…,the American worker and taxpayer.”

“To be sure,” Stokes further states, “No other country on earth, neither Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Spain, Japan, South Korea, China… no one would give away a core element of its critical industrial base which this Tanker, as built by Boeing with its clearly superior aircraft build skillsets, represents.”

The content of the May 28 release follows:

Following previous releases in February 2006 and March 2007, Global Heavylift Holdings, LLC, a Florida incorporated and Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) listed entity with principal offices in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, will continue its pursuit of an USD18.4B capital raise to implement a US/NATO-controlled Heavy and Outsized (H&O) air cargo industry utilizing new and used modestly modified variants of C-17 for commercial missions, while still meeting USAF operational standards as part of Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) organic airlift augmentation. (GOOGLE SEARCH: Global HeavyLift Holdings, LLC; also Commercial Application of Military Airlift Aircraft (CAMAA) )

” The current and real threat to C-17 line continuance concomitant with the core role this aircraft plays in our existent and long-term plans for wresting control of the H&O air cargo industry from our Russian and Ukrainian friends, whilst allowing them to maintain a symbiotic role with the heavylift market-proving Antonov AN-124 Ruslan, serves as a strong impetus to assist in the preservation of C-17, not for just the next 2 years, but for the next two decades”, says Myron D. Stokes, Managing Member. “A status, mind you, that C-17 richly deserves as an aircraft unparalleled in its tactical/strategic airlift capacity. And, given the fact there is no replacement on any horizon for an airlifter with capabilities anywhere near C-17, proposing its termination approaches the realm of the irresponsible.”

As for Secretary of the Air Force Donley’s comment to the extent if the AF needed more airlift, “They could always retrofit more [35-42 year old] C-5s”, Stokes observes that without complete control of the air in a battlespace -the intended role of F-22- very large, minimally maneuverable C5s (not to mention requiring significant air operations infrastructure) would be nothing more than fodder for the cannons and missiles of enemy fighter craft.

Stokes also stated his team will support Antonov’s late 2009 efforts to restart AN-124 production at Ulyanovsk, Ukraine, through as yet undisclosed means. The DoD continues to contract Russian/Ukrainian government controlled entities operating AN-124 to make up for in-theater airlift capacity shortfalls in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The company is right now in process of establishing aircraft operations offices (to anchor four global epicenters in the US, Europe. Middle East and Asia) with one of its strategic air partners in Oakland and Washtenaw counties, Michigan.

“Our strategy, as announced in February 2006, outlined a non-traditional business model involving a primary focus on acquisition of the necessary intellectual resources from within industry and government to craft a blueprint for a new global industry. It continues to evolve in content and depth, but has remained largely intact owing to built-in project execution flexibility architecture”, says Stokes.

“In light of the on-going fight, and it is a fight, if not out and out political war, for preservation of C-17, whose production constitutes so large an economic foot print as confirmed by the Department of Commerce (DOC) in its still quite viable C-17 Industrial Base Impacts Study of 2005/2006, our team is resolute in its support.”
(Note to editors: A copy of this quasi-public study is available upon request)

According to Stokes, the criticality of retaining an aircraft that effortlessly transitions between strategic and tactical airlift missions as demanded by 21st Century conventional (the military build-up of China; nuclearization of Iran and North Korea; re-emergence of Russia as a power broker, etc) and asymmetric war (Terrorist operations with global reach) threats/realities compells listing the following informational absolutes to clarify, if not neutralize, assertions being made by C-17 detractors:

1.Secretary of Defense Gates, with all due respect, has no truly substantive, credible data to support his intent to kill C-17. Although initially publicly supportive of ending C-17 production at 180 (now 205) as suggested by the never released to public Mobility Capabilities Study (MCS, 2005/2006) and 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR)gao which echoed MCS findings, former SECAF Michael Wynne and Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Mosely strongly recommended against line closure, and were fired last year as a result. It was this, not the “inadvertent” flight of a nuclear-armed B-52 across country, that played a significant role in their dismissal. The data the SECDEF refers to as “internal Pentagon analyses” is that developed by the Pentagon Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation (PA&E) in collaboration with RAND Corporation, and exists in the form of the Mobility Capabilities Study mentioned above, which was completed in late 2005 after several delays. This study was promptly debunked by the GAO (and to former SECDEF Rumsfeld in a strongly worded letter prior to its “release”) subsequently by Congress as being based on flawed analytics and inapplicable, outdated, conflict assumptions.

Comments to the effect that a new study ordered by Congress “Will reach the same conclusions as the first” should be suspect.

By all rational indications, the directives given to PA&E were designed to ensure an end of C-17 production in favor of C-5A and B retrofit, and inclusion of a much-delayed EADS/Airbus A400M (despite its inability to carry an Abrams Tank) in USAF inventory.

2.Before the MCS was completed, capable academics and researchers in industry and government were advised in advance of the “release” of its findings and promptly developed a countering study -co-sponsored by the USAF- as it pertained to industrial base impact. This was particularly important owing to an element of MCS concluding that industrial base impact would be negligible. As those lawmakers who were able to receive a copy of the DOC study before it was rendered inacessible ascertained, it reached a diametrically opposite conclusion.

3.The intent of the DoD to kill two critically important elements of national security, C-17 and F-22, comes on the heels of the confirmed (by Lockheed-Martin) theft by China of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMD) through a front company posing as an LMCO supplier. The Aegis is core to US Naval offensive/defensive capabilities, while being systemically interlinked to the whole of network-centric US military operations. Moreover, there is every reason to believe that F-22 Raptor and C-17 technologies have been compromised as well, owing to the relative ease with which Aegis was acquired. The Chinese clone was initially introduced on Luyang II-class Destroyers in 2005/2006 (derived from Sovremenny-class Russian vessels) and in all likelihood incorporated, among other capitol ships, within the now operational 67,500 ton Adm. Kuznetsov-class aircraft carrier Shilang purchased from Ukraine.

4.Transformational Recapitalization, an acquisition process well articulated by national security strategist Dr. Sheila Ronis in a Defense AT&L (November 2004) analysis “Transformational Recapitalization: Rethinking USAF Aircraft Procurement Philosophies”, holds the key to virtual elimination of Congressional/Presidential budget wrangling, while simultaneously taking large steps towards achieving oft-stated goals of governmental expenditure equilibrium. GHH will initialize this process through acquisition -following Congressional resale approval to the USAF- of first generation “A” model C-17s, currently constituting approximately 54 aircraft at a price ranging between USD90M-140M. The money paid to the USAF, subsequent to a necessary change in scoring law, flows back into their coffers, thus recapitalizing it. Another modification of existing budgetary law would require that these funds are used to acquire new C-17s only, therefore keeping Long Beach and St. Louis assembly lines open, as well as maintaining the irreplaceable design, engineering and supplier base.

Utilization of A-model C-17s from AF inventory allows GHH H&O commercial operations to begin sooner, and profitability to be achieved in a shorter timeframe, while maintaining these aircraft at mandated AF operational standards and immediately available in times of national emergency. The aircraft will be available for peacetime organic airlift augmentation at all times. Notably, the used aircraft scenario does not require Boeing’s participation, other than contracted and mandated major maintenance, or approval.

5.Concurrent with required Congressional approval for USAF resale of first generation C-17s, FAA exemption to FAR Part 14 CFR 21.27 -a reg requiring that all aircraft declared “military surplus” are re-certified to operate in US airspace- must be obtained. GHH maintains, as did Boeing in a previous petition, they are not surplus, owing to mandated inclusion in the Civil Reserve Air Fleet and continuous Air Mobility Command mission undertakings. Also, thanks to an impeccable C-17 safety record since becoming operational in 1993 (Iraq War sustained missile strikes and unintentional wheels-up landings at Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan, notwithstanding) there should be no viable concerns in this arena.

“We will not only continue to pursue the necessary resale language from Congress, to be contained within the 2010 or 2011 budget, but FAA exemption from 14 CFR 21.27, perhaps with a little prodding from the DoD. Furthermore, this continued exemption quest will be undertaken separate from Boeing”, says Stokes.

“The 18.4B funding strategy that will permit acquisition of up to 60 C-17As and 40 new aircraft, and hopefully include the even more capable B variant proposed, remains as a quadruple and simultaneous raise in the US, Europe, Middle-East and Asia. This approach continues viable as it was designed with the understanding of a possible financial sector melt-down over a year before it occurred.

“As of now, and towards the above objective, we have identified accessible resources up to USD5B. Conversely, in the middle of an economic war and a much more dangerous world, it is our intent, through the heavylift initiative, to be part of the profound economic revitalization efforts ongoing; at least to the extent humans can shape the outcome they want.”

Recognizing the absolute necessity of international C-17 sales to its continued production, GHH, while working with foreign governments to establish the four global aircraft operations epicenters outlined within plan data, encouraged them to acquire -and if already in inventory, acquire more- C-17s for both military and commercial use as a condition of purchase. Such overtures were made to the UK, Belgium, Japan and The Sultanate of Oman governments, among others.

“Many dedicated people in industry and government have worked very hard, and made many sacrifices, over the past near decade to preserve C-17 and to create a US/NATO-controlled heavlift industry with the BC-17 variant,” says Stokes.

“For all of us intensely involved in this project; from New York to Washington; from Detroit to Chicago; from St. Louis to Los Angeles and Long Beach, failure… is not an option.”

About Global HeavyLift Holdings, LLC

Founded in 2002, GHH is a strategic air transport solutions that was born of a multi-year public/private effort among forward thinkers in both the private sector and government to mitigate emerging and observable vulnerabilities in the U.S. industrial base global supply chain. Such vulnerabilities are represented by the fact that no ocean-borne shipping is in U.S. hands at present, thus potentially subjecting American corporations, especially automotive, and their global operations to the whims and perhaps economically hostile activities of and by foreign governments. Add to this the risk of terrorist activities, which have, according to the Department of Homeland Security, targeted maritime operations; i.e., ships, ports and ocean containers.

Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) listed, it is the goal of GHH and its strategic partners around the planet to work with key logistics personnel within these corporations and government agencies to conceptualize, craft and structure long-term global supply chain alternative transportation methodologies through continuous — not stop gap or emergency — air augmentation solutions. Its most important mission, however, has been in the co-development of global architecture for infrastructure of a new American controlled industry, Heavylift, utilizing the excellent airlift performance characteristics of the Boeing BC-17.

—
This article was first published at JKHanok.com
The article can be re-published on your site as long as this message remains intact.

This work by JK Hanok Press Release Center is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
—