I guess them Zionists are not providing enough material on their mayhem, covert and overt atrocities etc lately. So, some thinker in the Guardian decided to try the archives, unearthing an old piece by a "Legal Correspondent", whatever it means. Its subject: legality of Eichmann's capture by Israel. A quote from the beginning of the article:
It is a cardinal principle of international law that a state must not perform acts of sovereignty in the territory of a foreign state. It is, therefore, a breach of international law for a state to send its agents to the territory of another state to apprehend persons accused of having committed a crime.And from its closing paragraph:
There is, in fact, a first duty upon the offending State to hand over the person in question to the State in whose territory he was apprehended. There is a duty, also to pay reparations for the offence committed. It could well be, therefore, that before the Israelis get the chance of putting Eichmann on trial they will have to bow to the authority of the United Nations to determine whether the removal of Eichmann from Argentina was lawful.Methinks we still could hand over the vermin to Argentina, if they are interested.
That is, if some Guardianista will agree to carry the bag...
Oh, and don't miss the comments to the piece!
P.S. A point in favor of the Brits: not all of them think like that "Legal Correspondent". To remind you the 2007 case of one Mustaf Jama, the murderer of WPC Sharon Beshenivsky. The creep's return to England was kinda interesting:
He went into hiding in Somaliland but was brought back to the UK to face justice in 2007 after an undercover operation to smuggle him out of Africa.And a good job too. Say no more, say no more...
11 comments:
"I guess them Zionists are not providing enough material on their mayhem, covert and overt atrocities etc lately" are you kidding? The current US administration is waaay ahead. The Zionists had better tighten up their yamulkas and pick the pace to stay in the race!
Now I understand what bothered me lately. We are simply being left behind in the dust ;-)
Ah, but historically you guys have staying power!
Yeah, but some young and frisky competitors up to no good must be watched nevertheless.
Here is a challenge: How long before the Guardian publishing an article about how Israeli leaders should be indicted in the ICC for killing a citizen of Argentina? How long before the Guardian publishes an article (a la Massad) that claims Israel executed Eichmann in order to keep him from revealing its collaboration with Hitler? How long before the Guardian publishes an article in which it claims that Israel is exaggerating the Holocaust? It will not be presented as plainly as that but mark my words, the day is close by when some "intellectual" will pick up on this rich vein of antisemitic gold but will dress it up in human rights lingo and a lot of quotes from Jewish friends and Holocaust survivors.
I am not a betting person, but any serious crisis in UK economy may bring out all this, with vengeance.
Now the Guardian went back in time only 50 years to show the wrongs of our ways, next time they will arrive to the Roman times when we committed our most famous crime...
Yes, but what difference does it make? Hey, if it works for Hilary, it should work for Israel.
Not necessarily. We are still the unwashed heathens, compared to the general slickness of Clinton family.
Let's all understand that since the News Of The World went down, a black hole type vacuum was formed into which the Guardian was sucked. So, from being a meeting point for dregs of the British Loony "Left" (and a gamut of associated comorbidities), it has turned as yellow as a Jaundiced vomiting lap bitch, that constantly regurgitates and feeds on its own prolific bile.
I agree that regurgitating own bile played a major role in publication of this dreck. As, of course, choosing the right stuff to regurgitate.
Post a Comment