Michael Haas on November 16th, 2017

In 2016 FBI released a crime report according to which there were more than 17000 murder cases were registered. This means that there is more than 8 percent increase in a murder case which is very frightening.

If we talk about Violent crime then there is a 4 percent increase in that but it was seen that there was around 1.5 decrease in property crime which is very good.

The decrease in Property crime means that people are picking up required measures to avoid property theft.

Violent crimes can also be prevented if you start teaching everyone from the beginning about the morals so that they don’t pick up bad habits in future. These measures have to be taken up otherwise the crime rate will keep on increasing.

Apart from teaching children about morality we also need to follow some basic measures which will help us avoid crime in our country.

First of all, we have to be friendly in our neighbour-hood because whenever a crime takes place neighbours will always be first to arrive. Always try to maintain a good relationship with everyone in your neighbourhood.

Try to set up a patrol in your area or hire security guards from a security agency by collaborating with everyone in your neighbourhood. Security guards will always make sure that the neighbourhood is safe. Always make sure that the guards work in shifts like 2 or 3 guards monitor from morning to evening and other2 or 3 guards monitor from evening till next morning. This maintains twenty-four seven safety.

Start collaborating with schools so that they make the area closer to school a drug-free zone. This will help children stay away from bad things. A child can pick up a bad thing very easily so we need to make sure that children stay away from these things.

Always maintain a good relationship with local police. Ask the police to take around of the society every hour so that thieves will be scared and they won’t commit any crime. When police patrol is roaming in the area then criminals stay away from that place.

Put CCTV cameras outside your home and ask everyone in your society to put CCTV cameras outside their houses. You can also cover the whole society by fitting CCTV cameras in the society and asks the security guards to monitor them. Ask the guards if they see any suspicious person in the society then report to the police immediately. If possible get a gun license and keep that in your shoulder holster (read reviews).

Tell the guards to maintain a record where intruders are supposed their personal information so that you have an idea who came to your society. If at all a crime scene occurs in the society then you can check the records and track down the criminal. Use lockers at your home for jewellery etc and vehicle gun safe or locker for your phone and other valuable things.

These are some of the tips or measures that we can follow to make America safe again.

Apart from maintaining security outside our home, we need to make sure that our home is secure from inside. To maintain safety inside your home it is better to install intruder alarms inside. If you own a gun then purchase a gun safe for it.

Michael Haas on August 27th, 2015

Making war without UN permission is a war crime, according to the UN Charter. So is intervening in a civil war. Yet for months the U.S. Department of Defense has been bombing Iraq and Syria.

The United States could easily obtain permission from members of the UN Security Council for the attacks. But rather than doing so, Washington prefers to violate the UN Charter.

This website, accordingly, has been listing articles posted by the U.S. Department of Defense about the various attacks on “terrorists” in both countries. The essays, in turn, come from a Google listing of articles on Iraq that appears automatically each day.

Over the past week there has been unprecedented hacking of US war crimes. The same thing happened on September 9, 2015. There is no coincidence between the hacking and the listing.

Who are the cowardly hackers? Are they inside the Department of Defense? Or are they members of the CIA? Or perhaps just vigilantes, eager to prevent a website from continuing to list the DOD articles under Breaking News. Whoever is doing so might better ask the DOD to get UN Security Council approval. When they do, the articles will no longer be listed routinely.

If the United States wants law and order in the world, the way to do so is to follow the law—international law. If all countries were to follow DOD’s example, countries would routinely bomb other countries. Perhaps taking their cue from the lawless DOD, North and South Korea recently traded fire across their border. Russia has felt no compunction about supporting rebels in the Ukraine. Who will be next?

The essence of the nation-state system, as first developed by international law during 1648, is that one country should not have its sovereignty violated by another. If the DOD does not respect the most fundamental principle of the current nation-state system, then what kind of world order does it promote other than international anarchy that will have no end in sight?

Michael Haas on July 22nd, 2015

In 1961, Yale Psychology Professor Stanley Milgram sought to determine whether Adolf Eichmann’s claim that he was merely following orders was credible. He then began an experiment in which subjects for less than an hour were paid to punish someone in another room with electric shocks if they failed to answer a question correctly, not knowing that the person in the other room was not being shocked. Milgram later concluded, “The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.”

Ten years later, Stanford Psychology Philip Zimbardo got a grant from the U.S. Office of Naval Research to study the causes of conflict between military guards and prisoners.

But these important facts are not mentioned when the film “The Stanford Prison Experiment” begins. Nor is there any mention of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1967.

Instead, filmviewers first view Zimbardo (played by Billy Crudup) and colleagues interviewing Stanford undergraduates who need some extra money before classes resume in the fall quarter to select among applicants to participate in a two-week “prison experiment” for $15 per day. Some are then randomly chosen either as guards or as prisoners. Rules of confinement are explained before the experiment, but the guards violate them during the experiment, inflicting extraordinary psychological and even some physical and sexual abuse on the prisoners. Although they believe that they are trying to make their prisoners obedient, the guards end up slave training.

Some prisoners are so devastated psychologically that they are released within a few days. The experiment itself is terminated on the sixth day, when Zimbardo concludes that he can no longer tolerate watching the abuse he watches from a surveillance camera on the monitor in his control room. Indeed, the main person who is experimented upon is Zimbardo himself for undertaking an experiment without apparent knowledge of Milgram’s experiment or of actual conditions in military prisons.

American military doctrine is clear: when a superior officer identifies a lawful strategic objective, forces under his or her command must work to achieve it without delay. When it comes to Guantánamo, however, the Pentagon continues to obstruct President Obama’s mandate to close the prison. Their defiance is tantamount to insubordination.

Obama has said repeatedly and without equivocation that closing Guantánamo is a moral imperative and national security priority for the United States. He has further said it serves as a recruiting tool for terrorists. The president started out well on Guantánamo, signing an executive order on his second day in office requiring the prison to be shuttered within one year. He failed to achieve that goal because of missteps early in his administration, but the Pentagon, working closely with the State Department, transferred 67 detainees during his first two years in office what has become an all too familiar pattern in recent years, however, momentum was lost and closure efforts stalled when the president lost his nerve in the face of political opposition. By January 2011, he had effectively turned his back on Guantánamo, and only four men left the prison in the two and a half years that followed.

guantrano

In May 2013, nearly two years ago, the president returned his attention to Guantánamo in response to a mass hunger strike by the men and recommitted to closing the prison. He said Guantánamo is “a symbol around the world for an America that flouts the rule of law,” and “there is no justification beyond politics . . . to prevent us from closing a facility that should never have been opened.” He warned that “history will cast a harsh judgment on this aspect of our fight against terrorism and those of us who fail to end it.” He lifted a self-imposed moratorium on transfers to Yemen, and appointed new envoys at the State and Defense Departments to oversee closure efforts. Transfers resumed, and 11 men were released between August and December 2013.

Then transfers stopped, and momentum was lost again, because Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel refused to sign the paperwork necessary to carry out more transfers. In the first 11 months of 2014, only six detainees left the prison, five of whom were exchanged in a prisoner swap for a U.S. soldier held by the Taliban. In November 2014, Hagel announced his resignation amid conflicts with the president, including his refusal to transfer detainees. Transfers quickly resumed: 22 men were released in November and December 2014, and five more in January 2015. Since then, however, the State Department envoy resigned – and hasn’t been replaced – and the momentum for closure has once again ground to a halt. Now, 122 men remain in limbo, half unanimously approved for transfer by all relevant security agencies.

Michael Haas on June 3rd, 2014

At the end of a war, according to Article 20 of the Hague Convention of 1907, as later revised by the Geneva Conventions of 1949, prisoners of war must be either released to go home or put on trial for war crimes. As the American role in the Afghan civil war winds down during 2014, the subject of prisoner release from Guantánamo will inevitably have to be addressed.

Accordingly, the exchange of five members of the Taliban for one American soldier held  hostage by the Taliban for four and one-half years on May 31, 2014, has brought the Geneva Conventions back into the limelight, having been ignored ever since January 25, 2002, when Alberto Gonzalez, White House Counsel to President George W. Bush and later attorney general, authored a memorandum stating that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to the “war on terror.” For the first time, several members of the media are now using the term “prisoner,” rather than the politically correct term “detainee,” as they describe the swap, although the American military claims that they always referred to the soldier as a “prisoner of war.”

guantanamo bay

The American is  28-year-old Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, the only known American held as a prisoner of war by the Taliban. Negotiations for his release had been ongoing since December 2013, but the Taliban insisted that he would be released only in exchange for a swap of all five members of the Taliban held at Guantánamo.

Bergdahl was transferred to an  American military hospital in Landstuhl, Germany, where he is receiving psychological care and evaluation as well as a debriefing on the circumstances of his capture. According to present plans, he will be further treated at a military hospital in San Antonio, Texas, and later reunited with his parents in Hailey, Idaho, after his treatment at the hospital concludes.

Although his stay in San Antonio was described as “long term,” he was reported in good physical condition upon his release, so Bergdahl may suffer from a psychological toll after four and one-half years of captivity. The Taliban may believe that his release is consistent with Article 6 of the Geneva Convention of 1864, which requires repatriation of “unfit” prisoners of war; if so, then he should have been released earlier. But that raises the question why seriously ill prisoners have been held at Guantánamo, including Shaker Aamer and Ibrahim Othman Ibrahim Idris, whose lawyers have petitioned for their release this year.

Unilateral military strikes against Syria would be illegal under international law. Eight legal avenues for countermeasures against Syria’s use of chemical weapons are being blocked. One, however, may be open.

syria

  • China and Russia will veto the UN Security Council from taking action, although they have allowed a weapons inspection team.
  • Action could be taken at The Hague, headquarters of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), set up by the treaty banning chemical weapons (Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction of 1992), which has been ratified by most countries except for Syria. An OPCW expert team is part of the UN weapons inspection team in Syria. But on July 16, the American delegate complained that the Ukrainian chairing OPCW’s Executive Committee refused to place the issue on the agenda for discussion.
  • The treaty empowers the OPCW Conference of all ratifying countries to recommend sanctions against a violation. However, the latest meeting of the Conference was last year. Another meeting will take place in December.
  • The UN General Assembly, which could act under the powers of the Uniting for Peace Resolution of 1950, is not in session but is likely to block action when reconvened in September, as the membership is similar to the OPCW’s Conference.
  • Under customary international law, every country has the right of reprisal. That is, any country has the right to retaliate against unfriendly action by another, though the response must be proportional to the unfriendly action. If Britain, France, and the United States contemplate several military strikes against Syria, they must pretend that many of their own citizens were injured or are potentially threatened by the Syrian chemical weapons attack.
  • Regional organizations can take action when the UN cannot, according to some experts. The Arab League disapproves of any military strikes against Syria. The Gulf Cooperation Council has also not encouraged such action.
  • The Responsibility to Protect principle, adopted by the UN, allows action to prevent or stop genocidal action. A few military strikes, not having that aim, would not be consistent with that principle.
  • A new principle could be enunciated unilaterally by the United States. So argues John Bellinger III, who was legal adviser during the administration of George W. Bush. But his suggestion has not been followed by the White House.
  • Bellinger also suggests that the United States recognize a Syrian opposition group as the legal representative of Syria (as has the Gulf Cooperation Council). Then that group could call for military action, and Washington could come to the aid of a recognized government. But the Obama administration has resisted that option.

When President Barack Obama originally announced his “red line” on chemical weapons, the reference was to the possibility that the chemical weapons facility would get into the wrong hands during the civil war. Later, the objection was that the Syrian government would use or has used the weapons. Now the fear is that the United States will unleash further chaos without legal justification.

But we are talking about Mr. Drone Strike. The use of drones is extrajudicial execution, contrary to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and a war crime. So, too, is an American military strike on Syria.