Opposing Impunity for Geopolitical Criminality

5 Apr



Responding to intense pressure from the usual sources William Schabas, a prominent and respected expert on international criminal law, recently resigned as Chair of the UN expert commission of inquiry into war crimes allegations arising from the massive Israeli military operations in Gaza during July and August of 2014. These issues relating to international criminal accountability have also received recent prominence due to Palestine’s adherence to the Rome Treaty making it a party to the International Criminal Court, an initiative that generated an enraged punitive reaction on the part of Israel as well as an angry denunciation by Washington. On display in these instances is the struggle between extending the rule of law to international state crimes and the geopolitical resistance to such an effort whenever accountability to law is in tension with the pursuit of strategic interests.

Imposing international criminal responsibility upon political leaders and military commanders that occur in the aftermath of wars possesses a dual character from a geopolitical perspective: to vindicate major military undertakings of liberal democratic states and to ensure impunity for the leaders of these same states in the event that their behavior or that of their allies are alleged to be international crimes. These efforts at vindication are associated with strengthening the global rule of law and validating the established order, while impunity is invoked to insulate powerful individuals and their governments from criminal accountability. The resulting pattern in international life is one of double standards at the level of implementation and hypocritical rhetoric about the importance of a global rule of law based on its universal applicability.


Contemporary experience with these issues is grounded in the aftermath of World War II. In 1945 with great fanfare after World War II, especially at Nuremberg in the legal prosecution of surviving Nazi leaders, as well as at Toyko where a series of prominent Japanese personalities who had headed the imperial government and commanded its military forces were accused and convicted of international crimes. These sophisticated ‘show trials’ were generally endorsed in the West as a civilized alternative to the favored Soviet and British approaches, which would have been to arrange summary mass executions of all Germans deemed responsible for international crimes without making any effort to assess the gravity or accuracy of the charges directed at specific individuals. What was done at Nuremberg in 1945 was for prosecutors to prepare carefully evidence of alleged wrongdoing of each defendant under indictment as well as developing arguments about the legal relevance of the international crimes at stake while giving those accused an almost free hand to offer legal defenses and mitigating evidence as prepared by competent lawyers appointed to render them assistance.


In most respects, Nuremberg in particular continues to be viewed as a landmark success in the annals of the progressive development of international law. It is also significant that the outcomes of parallel Tokyo prosecutions of Japanese leaders are virtually unknown except in Japan where they are decried as ‘victors’ justice’ and throughout the world among a few specialists in international criminal law.


There are several reasons for the prominence of Nuremberg. First of all, the disclosures of the Holocaust at Nuremberg were so ghastly that some sort of punishment of those responsible seemed to be a moral imperative at the time.

Although the crime of genocide did not yet exist in law, the revelations of the Nuremberg proceedings documented as never before the systematic extermination of Jews and others in Europe. Beyond this, the war was widely believed to have been a just and necessary response to the menace of Naziism and Japanese imperialism, and their embrace of aggressive war. The Allied victory was viewed as decisive in overcoming the fascist challenge to liberal democracy, with the Nuremberg Judgment providing an authoritative rationale for waging a defensive war so costly in lives, devastation, and resources. Finally, the claim to be establishing a structure of legal accountability that took precedence over national law seemed integral to the postwar resolve to keep the peace in the future and deter aggression by reminding all leaders of the possibility of criminal accountability for initiating a war or abusing people under their control. The advent of nuclear weaponry reinforced the moral and political conviction that major wars must now be prevented by all available means, including this warning to leaders and military commanders that their actions could become the subject of criminal prosecution.


At the same time, this Nuremberg/Tokyo experiment was tainted from the outset. It was clearly victors’ justice that incorporated double standards. The evident crimes of the winners in the war were not even investigated, including the atomic bombings of two Japanese cities, which were viewed around the world as perhaps the worst single acts of wrongdoing throughout the course of the entire war, and only the Nazi death camps were in some way equivalent in relation to legality and morality. There were official statements made at Nuremberg that those who sat in judgment of the Germans would in the future be subject to similar procedures of accountability if they committed acts that seemed to be crimes under international law implying that the rule of law would replace victors’ justice. In effect, the claim made on behalf of moral credibility and political fairness was that this Nuremberg/Tokyo approach would assume the attributes of the rule of law by treating equals equally in future conflicts. Such expectations, if scrutinized, seemed to reflect the hopes of ‘liberal legalists’ in universal legal standards, but were never realistic goals given the structure and nature of world politics.


In effect, this Nuremberg promise could not be kept because geopolitical primacy continues to set the limits of legal accountability. Although there has existed an International Criminal Court since 2002, and ample grounds for believing that some major sovereign states have committed international crimes, there have zero prosecutions directed at dominant political actors, and not even investigations into possible criminality have been launched. Such a pattern results from a normative gap in world order that is not likely to be closed soon. It is a gap that is most visibly expressed by reference to the right of veto possessed as a matter of law by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. This right of veto amounts to an institutional grant of exemption from the legal obligation to comply with the UN Charter on matters of peace and security. For these five states and their friends and allies, compliance is discretionary, and non-compliance is in effect ‘a right.’ In this regard, the UN Charter is itself a product of what might be called ‘geopolitical realism,’ which takes precedence over the apolitical aspirations of ‘liberal legalists.’


And yet, the impulse to hold accountable those who commit crimes against the peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity remains strong among moderate democratic governments and in some sectors of global civil society. As a result there is some further development of the Nuremberg idea, although the fundamental tensions between hard power and establishing a credible rule of law with general applicability remains. During the 1990s the UN Security Council established ad hoc international tribunals to assess criminal responsibility associated with the breakup of former Yugoslavia and in relation to the genocidal massacres in Rwanda. In these North/South settings, there was more willingness to allow all sides to bring forth their arguments about the criminal behavior of their adversary since there were no allegations directed at geopolitical heavyweights. That is, the approach of liberal legalists became practical in these situations where no high profile geopolitical actor is being accused of an international crime.


The International Criminal Court was itself brought into being in 2002 by an unusual coalition of forces, joining governments with a great many NGOs drawn from around the world in a joint project. What came into being is an international institution with a mandate to investigate and prosecute, but lacking the participation and support of the dominant states, and operating within a framework that up to now has been deferential to the sensitivities of sovereign states in the West. Operating in such a limited way has led the ICC in its first decade to focus its attention almost entirely on African leaders, while looking the other way with respect to geopolitical actors. Liberals conceive of this as progress, doing what can be done, and beneficial to the extent that it apprehends some persons who have been responsible for atrocities and crimes against humanity. Critics of the ICC view it as another venue for the administration of ‘victors’ justice’ and an inscription of Western moral hegemony that entails a cynical expression of double standards. Both interpretations are plausible. The ICC is currently facing an identity test as to whether it will undertake investigations of alleged Israeli criminality made at the request of Palestine. Its institutional weight is being demonstrated by the degree to which the Israeli leadership reacts with fury, punitive policies, and intense anger directed at the Palestinian Authority for raising such a possibility. It should surprise few that Israel’s backlash against the ICC is supported by the United States.


For centuries there has been recognized the capacity of national courts to act as agents of law enforcement in relation to international wrongdoing. Such a judicial role was long exercised in Western countries in relation to international piracy, which was viewed as a crime against the whole world and hence could be prosecuted anywhere. Such an extension of international criminal law is based on ideas of ‘universal jurisdiction,’ strengthening the capacity of international society to address serious crimes of state. This kind of approach receive great attention in relation to allegations of torture made against the former Chilean dictator, Augusto Pinochet, after he was detained by Britain in response to a 1998 request for extradition by Spain where a court stood ready to prosecute on the basis of indictments already made. After a series of legal proceedings in Britain the House of Lords acting as the country’s highest judicial body decided that Pinochet should be extradited, but only for torture charges relating to a period after torture became an international crime within Britain. In theory, national courts could become much more active in relation to universal jurisdiction if so empowered by parliamentary mandate, but again doing so without challenging geopolitical red lines. When Belgian courts threatened to proceed against Donald Rumsfeld because of his alleged authorization of torture in Iraq, political pressures were mounted by Washington, including even threats to move NATO. In the end, Belgium backed down by revising its national criminal code so as to make it much more difficult to prosecute international crimes that occurred outside of Belgium and for which Belgians were not victims or perpetrators.


Civil society has also acted to close the normative gap created by patterns of geopolitical impunity. In the midst of the Vietnam War, motivated by a sense of moral outrage and the paralysis of official institutions when it came to challenging American behavior, Bertrand Russell organized a symbolic legal proceeding that investigated charges of criminality in 1966 and 1967. Prominent intellectuals from around the world were invited to serve as a jury of conscience, heard evidence, issuing their opinion as to law and facts at the end. Inspired by this Russell Tribunal experience, the Permanent Peoples Tribunal was established a decade later by citizens, operating out of Rome, holding sessions on issues where there existed moral outrage, legal prohibitions, and institutional paralysis, symbolically challenging geopolitical impunity. In 2005 there was organized in Istanbul by a dedicated group of female activists an independent tribunal to investigate war crimes charges against British and American political and military leaders, as well as corporate actors associated with the Iraq War. The Iraq War Tribunal relied upon a jury of conscience chaired by Arundhati Roy to pronounce upon the evidence. Of course, such a tribunal can only challenge impunity symbolically by influencing public opinion, and possibly through encouraging boycotts and other moves that delegitimize the claimants of power and possibly alter the political climate. Nevertheless, it plays a role in the legitimacy war dimensions of international conflicts, providing an alternative narrative to the discourse

disseminated by geopolitical forces and giving encouragement to civil society activism by providing a convincing rationale for concluding that contested behavior violates fundamental norms of international law and morality.


In summary, it is still accurate to observe that geopolitical primacy inhibits the implementation of international criminal law from the perspective of a global rule of law regime that treats equals equally. At the same time, ever since Nuremberg there have been efforts to end the impunity of those guilty of international crimes in war/peace situations and national settings of oppressive rule. These efforts have taken several main forms: (1) the establishment by the UN of ad hoc tribunals with a specific mandate as with former Yugoslavia and Rwanda; (2) the establishment of a treaty based international institution, the International Criminal Court, with limited participation and disappointing results to date; (3) reliance on universal jurisdiction to activate national courts to act as agents on behalf of international society with respect to enforcing international criminal law; (4) the formation of civil society tribunals to assess criminal responsibility of

leaders in situations of moral outrage and global settings that render unavailable either inter-governmental or governmental procedures of accountability. (1)-(3) are projects of liberal legality, while (4) draws on more progressive jurisprudential energies outside the statist paradigm.


In the end, there is posed a choice. One possibility is go along with the one-eyed efforts of liberal legalists, most notably mainstream NGOs such as Human Rights Watch, silently acknowledging that the rule of law cannot be expected to function in relation to many serious international crimes due to the hierarchical and hegemonic structure of international society. The other possibility is to insist there can be no international justice so long as there exists a regime of ‘geopolitical impunity.’ In both instances, the contributions of civil society tribunals are needed, both for the sake of symbolic indictment and documentation of wrongdoing, and to acknowledge civil society as the moral and legal conscience of humanity. It must be admitted that only among liberal democracies are such self-critical initiatives of civil society tolerated, although such undertakings are derided and marginalized by mainstream media as the work of a ‘kangaroo court.’ Obama’s refusal to look back at the international crimes alleged against leading members of the Bush presidency is one awkward admission of the limits on legal accountability; such reasoning if generalized would invalidate any concern with all forms of past behavior, and hence any notion of accountability for all crimes. In such a dysutopia criminal law might exist, but by habit and expectation it would never be implemented, however severe the crime and dangerous the criminal. In the world we inhabit, without kangaroo courts international criminal law would continue with its limited writ, and there would no tribunals whatsoever to assess the criminality of the most powerful political actors on the world stage that menace many vulnerable peoples in the world.





23 Responses to “Opposing Impunity for Geopolitical Criminality”

  1. truthaholics April 5, 2015 at 9:02 am #

    Reblogged this on | truthaholics and commented:
    In order to avoid meltdown of international law it’s high time for rule of law to apply to all, irrespective of their military or fiscal clout.

    • summitflyer April 5, 2015 at 10:06 am #

      Even if the ICC is not successful as it relates Gaza crimes, at the very least Israel will be exposed for the world to see,and this is what the war mongers fear the most.

      • Gene Schulman April 5, 2015 at 11:16 am #

        As if Israel hasn’t been sufficiently exposed. Except for those in denial, the whole world already knows. What is needed now is the power to dispose.

  2. zerojr April 5, 2015 at 9:19 am #

    Guilty as charged and the sentance is death

  3. Gene Schulman April 5, 2015 at 9:39 am #


    As usual, an excellent overview of the situation concerning criminal justice on an international level. But, as we know, the Empire still has the clout on its side. Wishing for justice is an empty hope, as long as it lasts.

    • Richard Falk April 5, 2015 at 5:20 pm #

      That is the core of the struggle–between those who are the beneficiaries of empire and their more humanely
      oriented opposition. It is a struggle, not a foregone conclusion.

      • Gene Schulman April 6, 2015 at 8:34 am #

        Whatever you think of Chomsky, this is well worth the time. He can be boring, but he is not inarticulate, rather brilliant. It is no accident that he is considered one of the most important intellectuals of our times. Lawrence Krauss, a physicist who wrote “A Universe from Nothing”, does a good job interviewing Chomsky. One of my favorite parts in the whole session is (about 1/2 through) the put down of Steven Pinker and his theory of “The Better Angels of Our Nature”!


  4. Jerry "Peacemaker" April 5, 2015 at 5:10 pm #

    Well into the year 2015 every nation on Earth should have long ago signed on to the International Criminal Court, agreed in the spirit of comprehensive global law and ending wars of aggression once and for all, then confined their actions to the generally recognized highest moral order.

    • Richard Falk April 5, 2015 at 5:18 pm #

      The question raised is how the ‘ought’ or ‘should’ become ‘does’ with respect to the ICC. As long
      as the geopolitical mentality dominates the leadership and citizenry of the dominant states this
      gap will not be closed.

      • Jerry "Peacemaker" April 10, 2015 at 5:51 pm #

        Mr. Falk,
        You are probably aware that “The Elders” (www.theelders.org) have recently proposed some major reforms at the United Nations. A powerful-enough global movement behind amending the UN Charter with wording like “All UN member states shall agree to submit to/fall under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, or risk expulsion from the United Nations organization” would provide about as strong an incentive as possible for those nations yet to join the “does” category. Any nations which resist or decline the ICC mandate would soon become the “black sheep” of the international community. As members of the pariah group of nations opposed to international law and order, the negative consequences suffered would soon lead to unanimity of UN member states.

    • Kata Fisher April 6, 2015 at 6:56 pm #

      A note:

      “2015: Ongoing research in low-income neighborhoods of American cities finds that residents have higher rates of PTSD than combat veterans,” https://www.yahoo.com/politics/29-centuries-of-ptsd-113441774961.html

    • Kata Fisher April 6, 2015 at 7:01 pm #

      Another Note:

      “Invisable civil war.”

  5. Kata Fisher April 5, 2015 at 10:12 pm #


    This is interesting:

    “When Belgian courts threatened to proceed against Donald Rumsfeld because of his alleged authorization of torture in Iraq, political pressures were mounted by Washington, including even threats to move NATO. In the end, Belgium backed down by revising its national criminal code so as to make it much more difficult to prosecute international crimes that occurred outside of Belgium and for which Belgians were not victims or perpetrators.”

    Does anyone have a copy of those revisions? I would like to see it.

  6. rehmat1 April 7, 2015 at 6:56 pm #

    Western laws are not established on morality. They’re established to protect the 1% evildoers against their victims. ICC happens to be one of those protective shields.

    On November 25, 2013, the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal (KLWCT) after listening to the testimonies of eleven prosecution witnesses and voluminous documentary evidence and extensive submissions by the prosecution and amicus curiae delivered its judgement on the two charges against the Zionist entity and its retired Gen. Amos Yaron. The Tribunal president Tan Sri Lamin found the Zionist entity and Yaron guilty of crimes against humanity and genocide.

    Tan Sri Lamin, former Malay High Court judge, who headed a seven-member panel, said the tribunal was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that both the defendants were guilty as charged. The other judges were Tunku Sofiah Jewa, Prof Salleh Buang, Prof Emeritus Datuk Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi, Datuk Saari Yusof, John Philpot and Tunku Intan Mainura.

    “While it’s constantly mindful of its stature as merely a tribunal of conscience with no real power or enforcement, this tribunal finds that witnesses in this case are entitled ex justitia to the payment or reparations by the two convicted parties,” said Lamin.


    • Kata Fisher April 8, 2015 at 7:13 pm #

      I have been violently ill – and I survived by having spoon full of oatmeal. I ate something that did not agree with me — I m still not feeling well…but I got to write this.

      For someone that has studied Christianity and Judaism at Catholic Mission — would know that only Jesuits – and those whom Jesuits teach mess up in reference to the criminality and Law.

      Ever since Church implemented false ordination and bizarre obligations their lay people in the world were worse then unchurched world … you will not find morality where spiritual excommunication took place – and no one is grafted in apart from Baptism in God’s Spirt. Why? Well, people in irrevocable sins (that are just added on and on with each generation of evil-doers) do not get saved/ grafted in apart from Baptism in God’s Spirit – only Baptism that is valid for the Church and Church woks / mission.

      In fact, evil doers – they will not even have the conscience that is grounded in moral laws – and are far off from the Church Laws / Law of the Spirit.

      We know what “1% evildoers against their victims” is: Lawlessness.
      According to the Gospel, I certainly know what lawlessness is.

      Where I come from – the priest gives you the Law. Meaning, those who sinned in the Church against the Church get no Marriages, no Baptism of the Children and no Communion in the Church – as long as they do not confuse their sins and do penance. Penance means – to do that what priest tells you.

      Occasionally – you will have prist / pastors who are just plainly in a dumb spirit, and will never explain anything.

      My mother and my aunt always talked about that, just as my grandmother did. Everyone knew who was busted by the priest, and who was unfit priest. What a hoot when priest / pastors do evil (“pious theos, pious theos ‘he, he, he,’ “and their lay-people are in confusion of hell.

      You see, it has nothing to do with the Law of the Gospel / Law of the Spirit.

      Just reflect on Church history – how wild with is branches.

      When Rome fell, and Church took over the wild tribes and by the birth pangs they somewhat grafted them in – while there were generational lines that were in satanic seals and blasphemy of God’s Breath / Life: God’s Spirit.

      Must have caught some fire while at the Church mission.

      everything looks just as after the fall of the Rome. However, Babylonia (false / never grafted in Church) has not fallen – it is still in the power of seven spirits of Satan and in Satan- in that power.

      For Church to reject Satan and all his works, evil and false promises also means to reject ministry and works of the false Church (clean up starts at home / local Church mission). Then, to be in the world may be just valid thing to do.

      You must be ordained in the world, and give you the Law.

      – that is exactly what Gene’s poor soul hope’s for and a Rabbi under cover.

      • Gene Schulman April 9, 2015 at 12:38 am #

        Kata, I have tolerated your Charismatic ravings without comment for some time. This is Richard’s blog and if he wants to allow you to rant crazily, that’s his business. But now you’ve gotten personal for no reason and attacked my “soul”. Let me tell you, Gene may have an essence (personality) but he doesn’t believe in a soul, especially one that could be affected by rabbinical teachings. Please do not address me anymore, especially in the third person.

        Hope you’re feeling better. Maybe you ought to patent that oatmeal cure.

      • Kata Fisher April 9, 2015 at 12:26 pm #

        I meant no personal offense toward you, Gene. It was just a saying.

        Occasionally, I will be intentional offensive.

        And as for me – I for sure could patents stuff – but that entail putting a ring on my middle finger, as well. Meaning, I would have to be a whore – or in bondage to the whoring.

        But you know that serving either Church or the wicked brings no one personal fulfillment or benefit. Don’t you know?

        The Church has a secret saying “do good the poor when ever you can – but do it yourself.”

        Nations may like to send some crushed barley and Olive Oil to robed and demolished places – demolished places that wicked “left behind.”

        It takes no more then 25 cents to feed poor child in India – and you may pay 10 cents for Pineapple in West Africa.

        But I would love to patent toilet paper with flags of all nations that took slaves for themselves from other nations. That would be appropriate Church charismatic gift for all of them.

        After being violently sick – I learned how essential toilet paper is.

        It is as essential as Baptism of God’s Spirit to he wicked.

        I am thankful for your concerns Gene, and I have to tell you that I feel much better.

        But you may like to read this article – it tells you just as it is.


  7. Beau Oolayforos April 11, 2015 at 7:52 pm #

    Dear Professor Falk,
    Not wanting to be over-critical, but I think it is important not to adopt the nomenclature of our more vicious adversaries, who are inclined to label eminent forums like the Russell Tribunal as “kangaroo courts”. That term properly applies, for example, to the judicial proceedings of the US govt’s new friend and close strategic ally, Mr Sisi’s Egypt.

  8. rehmat1 April 12, 2015 at 4:22 pm #

    Gene Schulman – I can assure you that behind his “humanism” Dr. Noam Chomsky is 101% a Crypto Zionist.

    Noam Chomsky, although, is a strong critic of US foreign policy – but he has never supported armed struggle against Israel. He also favors the so-called ‘two-state’ solution and believes in Israel’s right to exist as ‘Jewish state’. Chomsky never publically questioned the Zionist version of the holocaust (‘Six Million Died’). Chomsky is against academic boycott of Israel. Chomsky doesn’t believe that the US foreign policy is controlled by the Jewish groups especially the AIPAC. Chomsky also doesn’t like Israel being compared with the apartheid South Africa.

    Roger Tucker, Jew Editor/Publisher of “One Democratic State” website – in a recent article, titled “Open Letter to Uri Avnery, Noam Chomsky and Jimmy Carter”, claimed that none of them is friend to Palestinian victims of the foreign Zionist Jew settlers because in fact they themselves are ‘Crypto-Zionists’ hiding behind the facade of ‘humanism’.


    • Kata Fisher April 12, 2015 at 7:02 pm #


      I came across this. Was killing of Armenians a genocide? What would be the correct term for that which took place? Alternatively – it such things took place in this point in time (like today) – in present times would those things mean “genocide” in fact?


      Also, I looked at humanism as doctrine; it is full of ideas with shortfalls..
      The origins of it fall’s short to the truth of the human existence and condition (in whole).

      Renaissance was a hilarious time, and humanism (in essence) is in same order as Medival Everyman.

      However, historically, – humanism of this day can just look back and see that historical patterns gave no evidence of evil – but unsure what is or may be considered (divine)? – human…

      Maturing will push forward ( Epistle to Ephesians). It’s interesting to watch historical slide backs.

      We here laugh about any believe in a doctrine (secular doctrine, in essence) of whatever religious.

      Beyond anything – I was guarded by the Letters to Ephesians, and unfolding process that letter to Church in Ephesus explains.

      I read it, and I understood in each verse (one by one). Laughter.

      (Colosee has done evil because they divieted from the truth of the Church / the Way of the Apostolic doctrine in Position and Practice).

      The false teaching (of any kind) always undercuts sufficiency and completeness: human progress.

      By the way – I read your article about child marriages (world-wide). What would be most efficient implementation (of the Law) that actually implements that practice of the Law / against such illegal activities in practice?

      Everyone worships behaviorism – and behavior modification – humans are not animals. It’s a conceived evil implemented – that what behaviorism is imposing on to humans / cultures.

      To be Embezzled that that no one models behavior change – when they implement the Laws by wich they want society to change. Is it hilarious that these things are so?

      In fact – when humans ate treated as animals human progress is nowhere else then that cycle between humanism and behaviorism: dead-end “conditioning”.

      World in present condition has no Sustaining Force within itself.
      Christ of Nazareth the Cornerstone (Ephesians, Chapter 2) – no other Christ / Messiah / Sustaining Force will be then Spirit of Christ by the Cross of Calvary and Baptism in God’s Spirit.

      With this, as many as possible here I would ask to be Baptized in God’s Spirit by Free Fall.

      Whenever you can…

      • rehmat1 April 12, 2015 at 8:21 pm #

        Karta – Sorry to burst your Zionist balloon. My American Jewish blogger Roger Tucker calls your source, The Jew York Times. So,only someone whose brain is stuck between his legs would believe your source. Cheers!

      • Kata Fisher April 13, 2015 at 1:36 pm #

        Dear Ramat

        – that is a just most hilarious accusation – and I had heard many of them this far.

        I never had a Zionist Baloon / Lune … and I certainly refuse to obtain one. Now, I even have a idea for a prayer!

        “God give me a Balloon” I have to much of the Lune around me! – for so soon.

        I am not sure why Roger Tucker is so frustrated! – I do not mind odd interpretations because the truth is only one. By the way – who is Roger Tucker?

        So, who is he? ’cause I do not know him.

        I have to tell you something:

        Today, I was in the middle of the Scripture study, and I was looking for a footnote reference – and guess what I came across? You would not believe.

        I was wondering about the content of the article because I really did not understand – but I did try to read it….


        But then again, I reflected on some reliable truth- the truth that cuts down even to this century – by which I could understand!

        Then I was thinking “Where is the harlot that does not come without an intoxicating drink?” Then I was thinking – “what was that just confusing thought about this?!”

        I would not know that without this:


        Sold into slavery boys, and girls are back with a drinks – out of wells of salvation drinks!

        Sold into slavery boys, and girls are back – who needs a drink?



  1. The Rule of International Law | New Antarctica - April 5, 2015

    […] Richard Falk; ex- U.N. rapporteur for  Palestine, writes another beautifully effective and rational  analysis of the realities of international  law  in his blog entitled   “Opposing Impunity  for Geopolitical  Criminality” . […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: