"Innocent until proven guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt" is a proper legal principle to protect against false imprisonment and other forms of punishment. Open speculation about guilt is often proper too provided we don't mete out punishment based upon it and provided we qualify our language where there is doubt of guilt.
Some guilt is prima facie. Tzipi Livni is guilty of war crimes. I don't want to have to fall back on mundane and secular courts before speaking such an obvious truth.
Khalid Amayreh believes the war criminals must be punished to reestablish the precedent and to deter further or future such crimes. http://palestinethinktank.com/2009/12/16/get-the-war-criminals-arrested-now/
Gilad Atzmon goes straight at the Zionist Project as a racist and Nazi-like system. http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2009/12/16/israel-s-leaders-on-the-run and http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/israels-leaders-on-the-run-by-gilad-atzmon.html
The Ma'an News Agency reports on The Women's Coalition for Peace group's letter to Israel's former Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni, calling on her to turn herself in to be tried for war crimes. http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=247391
If that link is down (blocked by Mossad, etc.?), try the following:
Samira Shackle briefly touches on the international legal principle known as "universal jurisdiction" in matters of war crimes and the like. http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2009/12/british-israel-minister-former
David Sapsted reports that Universal Jurisdiction was established under the 1957 Geneva Conventions Act. He further reports the following:
Additionally, under the 1980 Magistrates' Courts Act, anyone in England and Wales can apply to a court for an arrest warrant for someone they wish to prosecute privately for a serious crime.
Daniel Machover, a London solicitor who cofounded Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights, said: "I feel honest revulsion at the idea of a case where a judge has granted an arrest warrant and a politician gets on the phone and apologises.
"They have got to stay out of individual cases and legal decisions. It's outrageous and the only reason the Foreign Office wants to do it is to avoid embarrassment - there is no good legal reason.
"If there was an arrest warrant against Livni, it's because there was a case to answer according to a judge who found that there was reasonable suspicion."
That's what Miliband and Brown wish to overturn. Will the British people cave into such fascism?
David Miliband and Gordon Brown and others are complicit, aiding, and abetting war-crimes fugitives. Miliband and Brown claim that arresting Livni and other Zionists for war crimes hampers the "peace process." The best way to bring peace is to stop supporting war crimes and war criminals. Miliband and Brown support war crimes and war criminals.
Of course, there are tons of war criminals all over the planet, and Tony Blair is rightly in the spotlight as one of them.
Miliband and Brown could be right in there with him. What did they know, and when did they know it?
Zionists are far from alone in being war criminals. However, their case sticks out more on account of the fact that it has happened after WWII and what happened to Jews. It has continued happening despite what the world did to break Apartheid South Africa's regime. It has continued to happen with the United States giving more military weapons and money to Israel per capita by far than to any other nation or people of the world.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)