SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: gerard mangiardi who wrote (263940)6/14/2002 5:50:44 PM
From: Tadsamillionaire  Respond to of 769667
 
Lawyers meet to create international criminal bar association
Fri Jun 14,12:01 AM ET
MONTREAL - Defense lawyers who plan to handle cases at the International Criminal Court were reminded of the risks of representing people charged with war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide — offenses that prompt anger and revenge.

Such clients "will be people who will be hated, and the lawyers who represent them will be hated," defense lawyer Nancy Hollander of Albuquerque, New Mexico, said Thursday to about 350 attorneys from around the world who gathered at a three-day meeting in Montreal.

"But let it never be said that an accused appeared before the International Criminal Court without a lawyer by his or her side."

With the court due to begin operating next March, lawyers from about 80 countries were holding the a three-day meeting aimed at creating an International Criminal Bar to guide their own role in the legal process. The results of the meeting, which ends Saturday, will go to the United Nations ( news - web sites).

The U.S. government opposes the International Criminal Court. U.S. President George W. Bush ( news - web sites) does not want its jurisdiction to apply to American military personnel and political officials.

Canada supports the court and has ratified the Rome Statute establishing it.

The lawyers hope the International Criminal Bar will help ensure accused people are treated fairly by the court.

"The right to a fair trial is there on paper," said Elise Groulx, president of the International Criminal Defense Attorneys Association. "This is to make sure those rights aren't only paper rights."

Hollander said the rule of law hasn't been applied in the case of Brooklyn-born Jose Padilla, who is behind bars and accused of plotting to set off a radioactive "dirty" bomb in the United States.

She said Padilla, 31, who was sought following the arrest of an associate of Osama bin Laden ( news - web sites), has been denied proper access to a lawyer.

Hollander said authorities arrested him getting off a plane from Pakistan on May 8 but they don't have any evidence against him — only the word of an informant that he's associated with al-Qaida.

Padilla's lawyer told him not to talk to investigators. The U.S. government, on a presidential executive decision, put him in a military jail where he can't have access to his counsel, she said.

"This is a very frightening situation," said Hollander.

The world's first permanent war crimes tribunal in April received the ratifications necessary to become a reality on July 1.

The court will fill a gap in the international justice system first recognized by the U.N. General Assembly in 1948 following the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials for World War II's German and Japanese war criminals, respectively.

At present, the International Court of Justice deals with disputes between states. Tribunals have been created for special situations, like the 1994 Rwanda genocide and war crimes in the former Yugoslavia. But no permanent mechanism has held individuals criminally responsible.

Groulx noted that when ad hoc international criminal tribunals looked into war crimes in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, defense lawyers found they were subject to the court registrar, which limited their freedom.

"There was nothing for the defense," said Groulx, of Montreal.

The new court will step in only when countries are unwilling or unable to dispense justice themselves for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and eventually crimes of aggression, when parties agree to a definition.

It will have jurisdiction only over crimes committed after the treaty enters into force. Cases can come to the court through a state that has ratified the treaty, the U.N. Security Council, or the court's prosecutor, who must get the approval of a three-judge panel.

story.news.yahoo.com.



To: gerard mangiardi who wrote (263940)6/14/2002 5:52:22 PM
From: Raymond Duray  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
THE NATION: WM. GREIDER ON CORRUPT BIDNESS PRACTICES

thenation.com

COMMENT | July 1, 2002

Bad for Business by William Greider

"How many times can you say 'unbelievable'?" my wife asked the other morning, as I was rattling the newspaper and again exclaiming over the latest outrageous news from American capitalism. Maybe it was the story about the CEO of Tyco International, a very wealthy and much admired titan, being indicted for evading the New York State sales tax on his art purchases. Perhaps it was the disclosure that the soaring market in energy trading, a jewel of the new economy, was largely a fabrication built on phony round-trip trades. Or the accusation that Perot Systems, after designing California's deregulated energy-trading system, turned around and showed the energy companies how to blow holes in it (and generate those soaring electric bills for Californians).

It is unbelievable--what we've learned in the past six or eight months about the financial system and corporate management. The systematic deceit and imaginative greed--the sheer chintziness of personal finagling for more loot--go well beyond the darkest hunches harbored by resident skeptics like myself. Indeed, the Wall Street system is now being flayed in the media almost daily by its own leading tribunes. Listen to this summary of the scandals: "The failures of Wall Street's compliance efforts are coming under intense scrutiny--part of a growing awareness of how deeply flawed the US financial markets really are. The watchdogs charged with keeping the financial world honest have all lost credibility themselves: outside auditors who bend the rules to please corporate clients, analysts who shape stock recommendations to woo investment-banking customers and government regulators too timid or overwhelmed to keep track of the frenzy." You might have read those points in The Nation, but these words appeared on the front page of the Wall Street Journal. A week later, another page-one Journal story crisply explained the implications for global investors: "Boasts about world-class corporate disclosure, bookkeeping and regulation of American financial markets have become laughable in the wake of Enron and Arthur Andersen scandals."

When radical critique becomes mainstream observation, change may be in the air. In my view, this is a rare historical moment--conditions are ripe for reforming and reordering the system, an opportunity unmatched since World War II. How things really work is on the table, visible to all in shocking detail, authoritatively documented by the torrent of disclosures, with more to come. The libertarian ideology that colonized economic affairs and politics during the past two decades (markets know best, government is an obstacle, greed is good) has been pulled up short. The conservative orthodoxy is vulnerable--actually breaking down--because it has no good explanations for what we now understand to be routine malpractice in business and finance. Political tinder is spread all around the landscape, but who will strike the match?

The potential downside of this moment is also palpable and quite ominous: Nothing will happen, nothing will change--nobody goes to jail, no significant reforms are enacted. If so, the main result will be confirmation of an already endemic public cynicism and the further poisoning of American values. The revelations, instead of provoking a sea change in political thinking, may be smothered by the alignments of corporate-financial power, diverted into false reforms and complexified to the point that media attention and public anger are exhausted. In that event, the consequences for the country will be less obvious but profoundly corrosive. The system would go forward in roughly the same fashion (perhaps tarted up with public-relations rouge), and everyone would understand that corruption is the system. In markets and in the popular culture, the message would be: Forget that crap about ethics--might as well take the low road, since that's how the big boys get theirs.

The stakes are enormous, and it's much too early to predict the outcome. But there's already abundant evidence that the business establishment expects to ride out this storm and is working the usual political levers to insure it. The politics resemble the S&L debacle in the late 1980s, when Congressional Republocrats put out lots of noise and smoke but left the high-priced suits unruffled and stuck the public with the bill. Our current galaxy of scandals is far more grave because it is systemic. Anyone with courage among the Democratic presidential hopefuls could seize this moment and reorder the agenda for 2004, but no one so far has found the guts to break ranks with corporate power. Smoldering public anger, however, may yet find a way to express itself, perhaps in the fall elections, and rouse the reluctant politicians.

For now, the best hope seems to be that the bankers and business guys will react to the fact that financial markets have been severely damaged by the scandalous revelations, as have the high-flying moguls of corporate America. Who can trust them? Who wants to pour more good money after bad? In other words, this scandal stuff is bad for business, especially bad for the faltering stock market. Henry Paulson Jr., chair of Goldman Sachs, delivered that message recently in a sober speech before the National Press Club and endorsed a number of useful reforms. His remedies are insufficient (even the Journal editorial page was happy to bless them) but are a fair start. A chorus of high-minded anguish from elite circles might persuade Washington that this problem does need fixing.

The scandals of Enron et al., unfortunately, must compete with another story--the war on terrorism--that's more exciting, and threatening, than dirty bookkeeping or the looted billions. The two crises are intertwined in perverse ways. The smug triumphalism of Bush's unilateralist war policy could be abruptly deflated by economic events--which probably would be a good thing for world affairs, since Washington couldn't run roughshod over others, but terrible for US prosperity. The financial scandals have provided yet another chilling reason to be wary of the US stock market, and if overseas investors decide to take their money home in volume, the already declining dollar will fall sharply. Credit would thus become suddenly scarce, since our debtor-nation economy relies heavily on capital borrowed from abroad, and such a convergence would trigger an ugly downdraft in the US economy. In that event, the fashionable boastfulness about America, the only superpower, would implode as swiftly as Enron's stock price.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Sober words, which the Business Roundtable has arrogantly decided to ignore.

-Ray



To: gerard mangiardi who wrote (263940)6/14/2002 6:26:41 PM
From: Ish  Respond to of 769667
 
<<Sorry but increasing defense spending to bolster the economy doesn't help long term growth.>>

But it does help to keep people alive.