-Caveat Lector- They lacked legitimate authority to invade and occupy, why would they care about having legitimate authority to loot and plunder? They're cowardly and vicious, with no legal or moral scruples, only pretentions. Once one understands this fact, the activities and motivations of these "cheats, and usurpers, and robbers, and murderers" should be of no surprise:
"200 Iraqi state companies would be privatised; decreed that foreign firms can retain 100% ownership of Iraqi banks, mines and factories; and allowed these firms to move 100% of their profits out of Iraq. The Economist declared the new rules a "capitalist dream"." Eric Stewart wrote: > > -Caveat Lector- > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4791982-103677,00.html > > Iraq is not America's to sell > International law is unequivocal - Paul Bremer's economic reforms are > illegal > > Naomi Klein > Friday November 7, 2003 > The Guardian > > Bring Halliburton home. Cancel the contracts. Ditch the deals. Rip up the > rules. Those are just a few of the suggestions for slogans that could help > unify the growing movement against the occupation of Iraq. So far, activist > debates have focused on whether the demand should be for a complete > withdrawal of troops, or for the United States to cede power to the United > Nations. > > But the "troops out" debate overlooks an important fact. If every last > soldier pulled out of the Gulf tomorrow and a sovereign government came to > power, Iraq would still be occupied: by laws written in the interest of > another country; by foreign corporations controlling its essential > services; by 70% unemployment sparked by public sector layoffs. > > Any movement serious about Iraqi self-determination must call not only for > an end to Iraq's military occupation, but to its economic colonisation as > well. That means reversing the shock therapy reforms that US occupation > chief Paul Bremer has fraudulently passed off as "reconstruction", and > cancelling all privatisation contracts that are flowing from these reforms. > > How can such an ambitious goal be achieved? Easy: by showing that Bremer's > reforms were illegal to begin with. They clearly violate the international > convention governing the behaviour of occupying forces, the Hague > regulations of 1907 (the companion to the 1949 Geneva conventions, both > ratified by the United States), as well as the US army's own code of war. > > The Hague regulations state that an occupying power must respect "unless > absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country". The coalition > provisional authority has shredded that simple rule with gleeful defiance. > Iraq's constitution outlaws the privatisation of key state assets, and it > bars foreigners from owning Iraqi firms. No plausible argument can be made > that the CPA was "absolutely prevented" from respecting those laws, and yet > two months ago, the CPA overturned them unilaterally. > > On September 19, Bremer enacted the now infamous Order 39. It announced > that 200 Iraqi state companies would be privatised; decreed that foreign > firms can retain 100% ownership of Iraqi banks, mines and factories; and > allowed these firms to move 100% of their profits out of Iraq. The > Economist declared the new rules a "capitalist dream". > > Order 39 violated the Hague regulations in other ways as well. The > convention states that occupying powers "shall be regarded only as > administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests > and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile state, and situated in > the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, > and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct." > > Bouvier's Law Dictionary defines "usufruct" (possibly the ugliest word in > the English language) as an arrangement that grants one party the right to > use and derive benefit from another's property "without altering the > substance of the thing". Put more simply, if you are a housesitter, you can > eat the food in the fridge, but you can't sell the house and turn it into > condos. And yet that is just what Bremer is doing: what could more > substantially alter "the substance" of a public asset than to turn it into > a private one? > > In case the CPA was still unclear on this detail, the US army's Law of Land > Warfare states that "the occupant does not have the right of sale or > unqualified use of [non-military] property". This is pretty > straightforward: bombing something does not give you the right to sell it. > There is every indication that the CPA is well aware of the lawlessness of > its privatisation scheme. In a leaked memo written on March 26, the British > attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, warned Tony Blair that "the imposition of > major structural economic reforms would not be authorised by international > law". > > So far, most of the controversy surrounding Iraq's reconstruction has > focused on the waste and corruption in the awarding of contracts. This > badly misses the scope of the violation: even if the sell-off of Iraq were > conducted with full transparency and open bidding, it would still be > illegal for the simple reason that Iraq is not America's to sell. > > The security council's recognition of the United States' and Britain's > occupation authority provides no legal cover. The UN resolution passed in > May specifically required the occupying powers to "comply fully with their > obligations under international law including in particular the Geneva > conventions of 1949 and the Hague regulations of 1907". > > According to a growing number of international legal experts, that means > that if the next Iraqi government decides it doesn't want to be a wholly > owned subsidiary of Bechtel and Halliburton, it will have powerful legal > grounds to renationalise assets that were privatised under CPA edicts. > > Juliet Blanch, global head of energy and international arbitration for the > huge international law firm Norton Rose, says that because Bremer's reforms > directly contradict Iraq's constitution, they are "in breach of > international law and are likely not enforceable". Blanch argues that the > CPA "has no authority or ability to sign those [privatisation] contracts", > and that a sovereign Iraqi government would have "quite a serious argument > for renationalisation without paying compensation". Firms facing this type > of expropriation would, according to Blanch, have "no legal remedy". > > The only way out for the administration is to make sure that Iraq's next > government is anything but sovereign. It must be pliant enough to ratify > the CPA's illegal laws, which will then be celebrated as the happy marriage > of free markets and free people. Once that happens, it will be too late: > the contracts will be locked in, the deals done and the occupation of Iraq > permanent. > > Which is why anti-war forces must use this fast-closing window to demand > that the next Iraqi government be free from the shackles of these reforms. > It's too late to stop the war, but it's not too late to deny Iraq's > invaders the myriad economic prizes they went to war to collect in the > first place. > > It's not too late to cancel the contracts and ditch the deals. "...the great crimes committed in the world are mostly prompted by avarice and ambition. "The greatest of all crimes are the wars that are carried on by governments, to plunder, enslave, and destroy mankind. "The next greatest crimes committed in the world are equally prompted by avarice and ambition; and are committed, not on sudden passion, but by men of calculation, who keep their heads cool and clear, and who have no thought whatever of going to prison for them. They are committed, not so much by men who violate the laws, as by men who, either by themselves or by their instruments, MAKE the laws; by men who have combined to usurp arbitrary power, and to maintain it by force and fraud, and whose purpose in usurping and maintaining it is by unjust and unequal legislation, to secure to themselves such advantages and monopolies as will enable them to control and extort the labor and properties of other men, and thus impoverish them, in order to minister to their own wealth and aggrandizement. The robberies and wrongs thus committed by these men, in conformity with the laws, - that is, their OWN laws - are as mountains to molehills, compared with the crimes committed by all other criminals, in violation of the laws...." Lysander Spooner www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
