THE HANDSTAND |
FEBRUARY-MARCH2010
|
SATURDAY, JANUARY 30, 2010
The UK
Jewish Chronicle is apparently stupid enough to unveil
the ferocity of Zionist lobbying within the British
Government and its corridors of power. The Jewish weekly
is happy to outline the relentless measures that are
being taken by Jewish lobbyists in order to Zionise the
British legal system and its value system.
As one
may assume the supporters of Israel in Britain are far
from happy about Britains magistrates being able to
implement universal jurisdiction laws, laws
that allow local magistrates to issue arrest warrants for
high profile foreign visitors accused of war crimes. The
rabid Zionist Jewish Chronicle is obviously outraged
because universal jurisdiction puts most of the Israeli
political and military echelon at a severe risk. Last
month ex Israeli Foreign minister Mrs. Tzipi Livini
cancelled her visit to Britain over fears that arrest
warrants would be issued in connection with accusations
of war crimes under laws of universal jurisdiction.
Surely
universal jurisdiction is not a bad thing. It is actually
an ethically orientated idea that is there to prevent
world leaders from abusing their powers and committing
crimes against humanity. It is also there to chase war
criminals and to stop them from celebrating their freedom.
Yet, it is not very surprising that the only political
lobby in Britain that acts against such a set of
universal laws is the Zionist lobby.
While in
the past Zionist activists tried to hide their
conspiratorial actions, JC political editor Martin Bright
and Chief editor Stephen Pollard are providing us with a
glimpse into the Jewish relentless political activity
here. Will the government ever act? they ask
in their latest editorial as
if the British government has to act in order to satisfy
the Zionist will.
Interestingly
enough, the JC editors do not offer a single ideological,
ethical or legal argument suggesting what is wrong with
laws of universal jurisdiction except suggesting that it
is not good for the Jews or Israel.
The JC
is rather outraged with Justice Secretary Jack Straw who
apparently fails to bow to Israeli pressure. Considering
Jack Straw is of Jewish descent, the JC must
believe that it is entitled to use some measures to put
him in the line of fire. In spite of the fact that Straw
is known in Britain for his notorious call for Muslim
women to remove their
veils and also as a backer
of the illegal invasion of Iraq. The JC blames
Straw for being too friendly with Muslims. Mr Straw
is known to be highly sensitive to the views of his
Muslim constituents in Blackburn and is close to the
Muslim Council of Britain, which opposes a change to the
law.
The JC
should have also accepted the fact that, bearing in mind
Straws Jewish origin, it is just natural for him to
be reluctant to put a change into British law that is
there to solely to serve Israeli interests and stands in
total opposition to every universal and ethical value.
According
to the JC, the Jews of Britain should not be too worried.
The Shadow Middle East minister David Lidington is
already in their pockets. This has to be sorted and
quickly, says the shadow man. It is very
clear to me that this issue is doing serious damage to
relations with Israel.
The
JC also assures its Zionist readers that they have a man
within the government who is working hard serving their
interests willingly and even enthusiastically. David
Miliband, the British foreign minister who is also listed
as an Israeli Propaganda (Hasbara) author on
an Israeli
official Hasbara site
already announced his intention to change the law late
last year. According to the JC he is pushing hard
within Whitehall for a solution. Earlier this month,
says the JC the Foreign Office briefed that an
announcement of the law change was imminent. I
wouldnt except less from a listed Hasbara
author
But
the JC is taking it even further. In its JC Opinion
editorial it says it is Crystal clear who is to
blame referring to Justice Secretary Straw and PM
Brown
The
time for excuses is over, says the paper. For
weeks the government has been giving every possible off-the-record
promise that it would change the law on universal
jurisdiction. No longer would unsuitable magistrates be
able to issue warrants for the arrest of some of our
closest allies. One may wonder why exactly on
the record genocidal murderers such as Livni, Barak
or Olmert should be considered as Britain closest
allies. In fact these people are primary enemies of
humanity and as such they are also the enemy of Britain
and any other nation.
Seemingly,
the JC, doesnt just talk on behalf of its editors.
For some reason it prefers to talk in the name of the
Jewish community. Mr Straw must take
the Jewish community for mugs if he thinks his behaviour
is not transparent. The only possible
interpretation of this statement is that British Jewry
wants Britain to give up on universal Jurisdiction just
to appease its Zionists.
In case
PM Brown is slightly confused and doesnt know how
to react, the JC is there to tell him how he should run
Britain just to keep the Jewish community happy. As
for the Prime Minister: all he has ever needed to do is
make clear that he backs Mr Miliband, and the issue would
have been over. Considering Miliband is listed as
an Israeli Propaganda author the message here
is clear. Britain better start to work for Israel and
even change its laws accordingly so it can easily comply
with Israeli unethical conduct.
Britain
is heading towards election, and the JC is advising PM
Brown that he is about to pay the ultimate political
price for his unwillingness to succumb to the Zionist
will. That he (PM Brown) has done precisely nothing
since promising action speaks volumes about his own bona
fides. If - and now it looks like when - the deadline for
action passes and nothing is done, it will be crystal
clear who is to blame.
In plain
language the JC is suggesting that PM Brown as far as the
Jews are concerned, is basically finished. I wonder how
long it will take for British people to wake up and say
enough is enough. How long will it take before they say
NO to Israeli and Zionist infiltration into their
politics, laws and value system.
Lord Hutton's 70-Year Seal on
Medical Records of Dr. David Kelly to be lifted
By WILLIAM F. WERTZ & DAVID
CHERRY
Monday, February 1, 2010
http://www.larouchepac.com/node/13340
Less than a week after it was
revealed that Lord Hutton had requested that a 70-year
seal be placed on the medical records relating to the
death of bio-weapons expert Dr. David Kelly in 2003 -- in
a blatant effort to prevent an investigation as to
whether he was in fact murdered because of his exposure
of the Blair government's lies about weapons of mass
destruction to justify the invasion of Iraq -- it has now
been reported in the British press that the Ministry of
Justice is conducting a review to overturn the ban on
post-mortem reports by Dr. Nicholas Hunt, a pathologist,
photographs, and other medical documents.
A letter from a senior official
at Oxfordshire County Council had first revealed that
Lord Hutton had requested that records provided to the
inquiry that were not produced in evidence should be
closed for 30 years and that the medical reports,
including the post-mortem reports and photographs, be
closed for 70 years. But last night, the doctors heard
through their lawyers that the evidence would be released.
Clearly under tremendous
political pressure, Hutton released the following
statement: "I consider that the disclosure of the
report to doctors and their legal advisers for the
purposes of legal proceedings would not undermine the
protection which I wished to give to Dr. Kelly's family,
provided that conditions were imposed restricting the use
and publication of the report to such proceedings, and I
have written to the Ministry of Justice to this effect."
The doctors are applying to the
Attorney General, Baroness Scotland, for permission to go
to the High Court for a new inquest, or the resumption of
the previous inquest. Their case rests on Section 13 of
the 1988 Coroners Act, which allows the High Court to
order a new inquest, or to resume a previous inquest, in
special cases. No coroner's inquest was ever held into Dr
Kelly's death.
Last year, the six doctors
published a medical dossier saying that Lord Hutton's
conclusion -- that Dr. Kelly killed himself by severing
the ulnar artery in his left wrist after taking an
overdose of prescription painkillers -- was untenable
because the artery is small and hard to access, and
severing it would not in any case cause death.
The Herald Express reports that
retired surgeon David Halpin, who is among senior doctors
taking legal action to force a coroner's inquest, said:
"This is an unexpected decision but from my point of
view the autopsy is only part of what we want to see."
Halpin also said the results of a chemical analysis of Dr.
Kelly's body and blood will also be needed. He added:
"After six years, we have never given up. We have
laws in this land and us six doctors are trying our very
best to make sure that the law is upheld in the case of
Dr. Kelly."
Dr. Michael Powers, QC, also one
of the doctors involved, said on Saturday: "Obviously
we welcome this news that Lord Hutton is now going to
disclose the medical reports and any post-mortem reports.
We particularly welcome it if it can be assured that we
shall have access to all the material, so that we can
consider it. We are grateful to Lord Hutton for his
change of mind, but if we are to be given access to post-mortem
reports we need to consider all the medical and
scientific evidence obtained after Dr. Kelly's death.
There can be no justification for partial disclosure
other than national security, and how could that be
relevant to suicide?"
|