Who Are The International War Criminals Committing and Profiting From War Crimes in Yemen? – By Theodore McIntire

Who is not aware of the widespread violations of the laws of armed conflict in Yemen that has prompted the United Nations to carry out a comprehensive examination of all alleged violations and abuses since September 2014?

With so much accumulated and credible evidence of war crimes in Yemen, is it possible to determine suspected war criminals that are currently unidentified and unpunished?

Can anyone overcome a major challenge that the vast majority of the global community appears unaware of and unconcerned about? Who is willing to speak truth to power and identify the international actors who could be charged as war criminals for their role in exacerbating the humanitarian crisis arising from the civil war in Yemen?

The belligerent and supporting countries and actors external to the Yemen civil war are extensive. They include Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, United States of America, United Kingdom, Australia, Iran, Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and Academi.

Obviously the international entities involved and profiting from the Yemen civil war include many of the big defense contractors, but surprisingly the tentacles of this lucrative business extends all the way down to suppliers of logistics who are not normally identified as providers of military products and services.

In addition, the specialized field of private military contractors operating in Yemen is quite rich. Indeed, the field is so lucrative that even notorious individuals who had previously announced they were “…getting out of the government contracting business." have jumped right back into the center of this very profitable racket.

The most serious and wide ranging accusation that multiple entities have concluded and publicly documented is that the Saudi led coalition has intentionally starved the civilian population in Yemen.

Starvation of a civilian population is in direct violation of International Humanitarian Law Rule 53 which states the use of starvation of the civilian population as a method of warfare is prohibited, and Rule 54 which states that attacking, destroying, removing or rendering useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population is prohibited.

The United States has actively supported the Saudi led coalition by providing intelligence, refueling planes, and selling billions of dollars in weapons and training to be used in Yemen. Additional weapons, logistics and services have also been supplied by numerous other international governments and actors who are fully aware that sold items would be used in Yemen.

“Under customary international law, aiding and abetting war crimes includes three elements:

(1) A Principal person or entity committed a war crime;
(2) Another actor committed an act that had a substantial effect upon the commission of the underlying offence; and
(3) Required mental state: The other actor knew that that such an act would assist, or had the substantial likelihood of assisting, the commission of the underlying offense.”

Furthermore, the mens rea for aiding and abetting war crimes under customary lawrequires only knowledge and not purpose: “the accused knew that his acts would assist the commission of the crime by the perpetrator or that he was aware of the substantial likelihood that his acts would assist the commission of a crime by the perpetrator.”

With this knowledge and despite warnings from some officials in the Obama Administration that they could be implicated in war crimes for aiding and abetting actions in Yemen that have killed thousands of civilians the United States and other participating countries and actors have proceeded with aiding and arming internal and external suspected war criminals who have involved themselves in the Yemen civil war.

Multiple personnel in the U.S. Congress have been actively investigating U.S. Foreign Military Sales of training provided to the naval forces of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia that could serve as a crucial link clearly tying the U.S. to the naval blockade and resultant starvation of the civilian population of Yemen.

These and other widespread concerns have not precluded the Trump administration from pressing ahead with plans to expand the transfer of weapons and training to the region.

Although President Trump called for the lifting of the blockade of Yemen, neither a White House Statement nor simple Tweets would in any way obviate the President of the United States of America nor any other government official or citizen of any country in the world from the mens rea for aiding and abetting war crimes in Yemen.

When considering the topic of suspected international war criminals we should also take a moment to consider the inevitability of future war crime trials. Reviewing the identities of already convicted war criminals it might be possible to conclude that it is impossible for some to ever be identified as a war criminal as long as they are not Nazi Germans, Slavs, Arabs, Asians, and Africans.

However, using a more objective standard of a peer reviewed academic resource on just war theory does not assume any such limitations: “In asserting the need to find universalisable principles, the just war theorist is usually keen to insist that any war crimes trials are held in neutral states and presided over by neutral parties, rather than the victors whose partiality in proceedings must be presumed: after all, in the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials, no allied generals or politicians were held accountable for the atrocities created by bombing civilian centers in Germany and Japan and the dropping of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.”

Overcoming ingrained preconceived bias to arrive at war crimes standards that comply with just war theory requires detailed, educated and thoughtful reflection.

Given the overwhelming volume and detail of information already available, is it possible at this point in time to outline a list of those who run the risk of eventually being identified as violating international humanitarian law or failing to fulfill their basic human responsibilities?

Is it reasonable to expect that some individuals from the belligerent and supporting countries and actors who have been in the positions listed below are likely to someday be identified as responsible for facilitating war crimes in Yemen?

• Current and former heads of governments or organizations
• Current and former legislators who authorized military action or failed to curb military action
• Current and former Secretaries of Defense, Ministers of Defense or senior military leaders
• Current and former government intelligence, military training and defense acquisition officials
• Board members, Chief Officers, and Directors of major and minor defense contractors
• Board members, Chief Officers, and Directors of financing entities
• The public and citizenry for turning a blind eye and remaining silent

Who could or should be added to this list or called out by name?


Theodore McIntire

The author was a 1984 graduate of the United States Air Force Academy, was a Major (Retired) of the U.S. Air Force and is currently a worldwide advocate and promoter of Human Security.

LinkedIn Profile

Alvin and Heidi Toffler – In Memory of the Deceased Future Part 1

Update 14 February 2019

Heidi Toffler, Obituary, Unsung Force Behind Futurist Books, Dies at 89, Keith Schneider, The New York Times, 12 February 2019

...





To grasp what goes on today. Or even better. To get what NOT goes on or the massive contemporary confusion, it is helpful to study quite recent ideas and arguments about the future.

The true masterminds of to understand the next steps from the epoch of simple manufacturing were Alvin (1928–2016) and Heidi Toffler (1930–2019).

Alvin and Heidi Toffler wrote their books together, at least that is the information in the later interviews of Alvin, even if most of the books are presented as Alvin is the sole author.

Read all the books by the Tofflers as their message is all about the absolute need of to reach a Dynamic culture; a need that so far has been sabotaged by the Static ideals of the Academic cult.

It can in fact be said that absolutely nothing vital has happened since the Tofflers began to write.

The huge difference between the middle of the 1960s and now are more stuff and more problems. More than fifty years of extra concentrated stupidity.

Especially the books Future Shock and The Third Wave were at the time highly influential bestsellers.


The Most Essential Works by the Tofflers

The first article, as Pdf, The Future as a Way of Life, Horizon magazine (1965)

Future Shock (1970), Internet Archive

The Third Wave (1980), Internet Archive

Powershift: Knowledge, Wealth and Violence at the Edge of the 21st Century (1990), Internet Archive

Revolutionary Wealth (2006)


The Tofflers Offers the Usually Missing Context

The Tofflers defines the historic background, at least a part of it, as well as what drives change in different forms or Dimensions in relation to the historic context.

And therefore could the Tofflers predict the need of and the innovation of services and products rather well.

As I understand it, is the main message of the Tofflers that real Change or development cannot take place if vital parts or Dimensions (of the society) resist change or is Static; as then will the result be the Social conflicts we experience today.

Here is a good example: 'Epidemic of stress' blamed for 3,750 teachers on long-term sick leave, Anushka Asthana, Mason Boycott-Owen, The Guardian, 11 January 2018.

Here is the first sentence in the Future Shock (1970).

This is a book about what happens to people when they are overwhelmed by change.

And just taste headlines, from the same book, like for example;

The Collapse of Hierarchy
Beyond Bureaucracy
The Industrial Era School
The New Educational Revolution
The Organizational Attack

The final sentences in the Power Shift (1990) are:

For it is now indisputable that knowledge, the source of the highest-quality power of all, is gaining importance with every fleeting nanosecond.

The most important Powershift of all, therefore, is not from one person, party, institution, or nation to another. It is the hidden shift in the relationships between violence, wealth, and knowledge as societies speed toward their collision with tomorrow.

This is the dangerous, exhilarating secret of the Powershift Era.

 One more time.

For it is now indisputable that knowledge, the source of the highest-quality power of all, is gaining importance with every fleeting nanosecond.

More Links

Obituary, Alvin Toffler, Author of ‘Future Shock,’ Dies at 87, Keith Schneider, The New York Times, June 29, 2016.

Future Shock at 40: What the Tofflers Got Right (and Wrong), Greg Lindsay, Fast Company, 15 November 2010.

Big Thinkers – Alvin Toffler (2002), YouTube.

The documentary Future Shock (1972), hosted by Orson Welles (1915–1985), is a definitive must-see even if the quality of this version on YouTube is poor.

...

Reflect on Steve Jobs' Speech and the Other side of the Static Wall – In Memory of the Deceased Future Part 2, 30 March 2018

On How Citizens are Replaced by Soldiers

In the upcoming chapters I write a lot about the book Soldaten: On Fighting, Killing and Dying; The Secret Second World War Tapes of German POWs (2012), Google Books, by Sönke Neitzel and Harald Welzer.

This book is a very well crafted Academic work and became also a bestseller.

The book is based on Neitzel's discovery of transcripts of conversations between German prisoners of war during WW II, and tells many otherwise hidden relations of the current Western culture that demonstrates how the ideals of the citizen is transformed to the ideals of the soldier.

Here follows more links, a documentary that is based on the same material and an interview with Neitzel.

Here is a perfect presentation and overview. The Nazi prisoners bugged by Germans, Mario Cacciottolo, BBC, 18 January 2013.




Published on 3 May 2013.

Secrets of the Dead is a television series made by the PBS.

Helen Fry

Joshua Levine

Fritz Lustig (1919-2017)

Trent Park Museum – Home of the Secret Listeners

Photos of German officers and links, Wikipedia, Trent Park.




Published on 12 November 2012.

The Agenda,

Steve Paikin

A Groundbreaking Speech by the British Minister for Universities and Science – Will Perhaps – Opens Up To Real Education, Real Science and Real Democracy

The British Minister for Universities and Science Jo Johnson held yesterday, 26 December 2017, a remarkable speech titled “Free speech in the liberal university”.


Contents

- Intro
- From the Speech
- Media Coverage of the Speech
- The British Discussion
- And Don't Miss: Boris, Kick Out the Romans for Good!


Intro

Before this speech was the only possibility that the Academic cult is the main protector of Real Education, Real Science and Real Democracy.

After this speech it is impossible for the Academic cult to depend on the earlier hollow propaganda.

From now on is possible, or at least more possible, to openly explore HOW and WHY the Academic cult promotes a Culture of Silence (as they need to hide and protect their mystical foundations).

Furthermore this speech was the latest official manifestation of the perspective for a new organisation that will supervise the universities called the Office for Students.

United Kingdom is simply the leading nation in the efforts to achieve real Knowledge and real Democracy. Macron and Merkel, beat the Brits by to officially dissolve the Academic cult at once!

Or like this. The Office for Students is a clear result of Brexit and the stupid dream to re-establish the Roman Empire by the stupid ideals of Platonism and to Worship the Emperor.


From the Speech

Original text: Free speech in the liberal university, A speech by Jo Johnson at the Limmud Conference, Birmingham, GOV.UK, 26 December 2017

Under the headline Threats to freedom of speech.

A particularly worrying challenge to universities as bastions of liberalism comes from the threat to legal free speech and to open debate on our campuses.

Our universities, rather like the Festival we are today, should be places that open minds not close them, where ideas can be freely challenged and prejudices exposed.

But in universities in America and increasingly in the United Kingdom, there are countervailing forces of censorship, where groups have sought to stifle those who do not agree with them in every way under the banner of “safe spaces” or “no-platforming”.

However well-intentioned, the proliferation of such safe spaces, the rise of no-platforming, the removal of ‘offensive’ books from libraries and the drawing up of ever more extensive lists of banned “trigger” words are undermining the principle of free speech in our universities.

...

Indeed, in 1673 Spinoza refused a prestigious appointment as professor of philosophy at the University of Heidelberg, because the job offer came with a restriction on what he could say - a stipulation that he must “not insult the principles of the established religion”.

That’s why the government is taking action now.

As part of our reforms to higher education, we have set up a new regulator, the Office for Students (OfS), which, as its name suggests, will regulate the university sector in a way that puts the interests of students first.

Created by the Higher Education & Research Act 2017, Original text at legislation.gov.uk, Wikipedia, the OfS will come into being next week. 

Promoting freedom of speech within the law will be at the heart of its approach to the regulation of our higher education system.

The OfS will go further than its predecessor in promoting freedom of speech.

...

Whether it’s Gallileo’s heretical rejection of geocentrism, Darwin’s godless theory of creation or the bravery of dissidents resisting oppression all over the world, history shows the right to disagree is the cornerstone of intellectual and political freedom.

I am pleased to say that this freedom is as important to the OfS’s new chairman, Sir Michael Barber, as it is to me.

In a recent article entitled “In Defence of Uncomfortable”

Wrong in the original text, correct is probably Universities must be places of intellectual discomfort, Times Higher Education, 23 November 2017.

arguing that universities need to foster a climate of open inquiry in order to provide a truly valuable education, Michael pointed out that “Diversity of view and disagreement, is a vital ingredient of places of higher learning”.

...

And I want to be clear about this: attempts to silence opinions that one disagrees with have no place in the English university system. Academics and students alike must not allow a culture to take hold where silence is preferable to a dissenting voice.

...

But there is much more to do.

Universities cannot afford to be complacent about complying either with their duties to protect freedom of speech, or anything less than vigilant against hate speech (or other unlawful activity) masquerading as the exercise of the right to freedom of speech.

Both duties are vitally important to a civilised democratic society.

Media Coverage of the Speech

Short Video, Don’t shield students from opinions they don’t agree with, universities minister Jo Johnson warns, Camilla Turner, The Telegraph, 26 December 2017.

Universities will be less able to make scientific breakthroughs if they do not tackle 'safe space' culture, minister warns, Camilla Turner, The Telegraph, 26 December 2017.

Jo Johnson to tell universities to stop 'no-platforming' speakers, Rajeev Syal and Rowena Mason, The Guardian, 26 December 2017.

Universities should promote independent thought and free speech, but also ensure the debate is respectful, Editorial, The Independent, 26 December 2017.

Universities must be places that 'open minds, not close them', Jo Johnson warns, Ashley Cowburn, The Independent, 26 December 2017.


The British Discussion

Some links that highlight the British discussion.

Free Speech University Rankings 2017, The crisis of free speech on campus, Spiked, Tom Slater coordinator.

... Our survey, ranking 115 UK universities using our traffic-light system, shows that 63.5 per cent of universities now actively censor speech, and 30.5 per cent stifle speech through excessive regulation. This marks a steady rise in censorship over the past three years. Now only six per cent of UK universities are truly free, open places. ...

See also their page Media Coverage.

Some of the background: Students should be made to feel 'uncomfortable' so they can learn, chair of the Office for Students says, Camilla Turner, The Telegraph, 23 November 2017.

Earlier this month, Oxford University's chancellor said that “safe spaces and no-platforming policies at universities are "fundamentally offensive".

Freedom of speech, censorship and bias – interesting times in HE (Higher Education), Jane Forster, The Lighthouse Policy Group, 27 October 2017.

The Lighthouse Policy Group is an informal and independent network to support those who work in the role of Executive Officer / Policy Adviser or similar to a Vice-Chancellor.

And Don't Miss: Boris, Kick Out the Romans for Good!

My post: Boris, Kick Out the Romans for Good! – An Open Letter To Boris Johnson, 21 December 2016.