Thursday, December 27, 2012

12-12-27 PRESS RELEASE – FATCA, Stanley Fischer, and "Chief Clerk" Sarah Lifschitz in the High Court of Justice of the State of Israel


[Hebrew below //  עברית להלן]


A letter by "Chief Clerk" Sarah Lifschitz is rejected by Petitioner, since a) it fails to refer to the law of the State of Israel in pertinent matters, and b) Sarah Lifschitz signs as "Chief Clerk", but has no appointment record as such.  Zernik v Fischer, Petition to Compel the Governor of the State of Israel to perform his duties regarding banking regulation, documents again the tight link between corruption of the courts and failing banking regulation.  The courts of the State of Israel have experienced unprecedented corruption over the past decade under the tenure of Presiding Justice Aharon Barak and Dorit Beinisch.


     [pics]

Stanley Fischer, Governor of the Bank of Israel - Israel's Banking Regulator and Bilderberg Member, showing off his newly acquired Israeli ID in 2005; Supreme Court of the State of Israel, FATCA.
              

Jerusalem, December 27 – a December 20, 2012 letter by "Chief Clerk" Sarah Lifschitz of the Supreme Court was rejected by Petitioner Joseph Zernik, PhD, of Human Rights Alert (NGO).  Ms Lifschtiz's letter pertains to Dr Zernik's "Notice of Withdrawal from Incompetent Process" in Zernik v Fischer in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel, a petition to compel Governor of the Bank of Israel Stanley Fischer to perform his duties in banking regulation.
Today's rejection letter in part says:
The Undersigned cannot accept the letter as one, which was written in good faith:
1. "In response to your claims, no defect fell in the process" – such statement is meaningless, it fails to refer at all to the integrity, or lack thereof, of registration in this court file, relative to the law of the State of Israel in general, and the Regulations of Procedure of the High Court of Justice (1984).
2. The letter is signed by, "Sarah Lifschitz, Chief Clerk", but both Ms Sarah Lifschitz and the office of Administration of Courts continue in their refusal to produce the appointment record of Ms Sarah Lifschitz as "Chief Clerk" of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel.  Therefore, it remains at least unclear, what authority Ms Sarah Lifschitz holds to issue such letter and sign it as she did.
The evidence as a whole shows that Ms Sarah Lifschitz has occupied the office of the Chief Clerk since 2002, for over a decade, with no lawful appointment record. [5]

Ms Lifschitz's December 20, 2012 letter, which followed Dr Zernik's notice of withdrawal from incompetent process, in part says:
On November 15, 2012, the Petitioner delivered to Chief Clerk Sarah Lifschitz a letter regarding competence of the registration of records in this case.  In his letter, the Petitioner wrote:
The listings in the online public access system of the Court under the file name and number, referenced above, increasingly appear confusing, if not false and misleading: [1,2]
·         On October 23, 2012, only the filing of one paper is listed under "Events"; Petitioner filed two papers on that date.
·         On November 05, 2012 the filing on an "Appeal" is listed under "Events"; Petitioner filed no appeal in this case, where it remains unclear where an appeal could have originated in.
·         On November 07, 2012, the filing of a "document" is listed under "Events" with no name of Filer or any further details regarding the nature of the paper; Petitioner filed no paper, neither was he noticed of the filing of any paper by the Court or any other party on that date.
Therefore, the Petitioner writes to request that the Chief Clerk provide a certified docket – a list of the papers that were entered into registration [התקבלו לרישום] in the above referenced case by the office of the Clerk of the Court… With it, the Petitioner requests that the Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court provide a copy of her due Appointment Record.
Given the refusal of the Chief Clerk to respond on this matter and to initiate the necessary corrective actions, the listings, now appearing under this case file in the online public access system, should be deemed false and deliberately misleading.
Therefore, the Petitioner finds any further filing of records under the above referenced caption unworthy, and he provides herein notice to the Court regarding withdrawal from the process, as a letter to the Chief Clerk.  With it, the Undersigned will continue his efforts to materialize the rights for Fair Hearings and Competent National Courts for Protection of Rights.

The 2013 Human Rights Alert's submission to the Human Rights Council of the United Nations documents unprecedented corruption of the electronic records of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel, starting in 2002, under Presiding Justice Aharon Barak.  Numerous falsified decision records were discovered, which appear certified by the late Chief Clerk Shmaryahu Cohen up to five (5) years after his death in 2002.  Ms Sarah Lifschitz has been occupying the office of Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court ever since.  However, in 2012 the office of Administration of Courts denied a request, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, for the Appointment Record of Sarah Lifschitz, claiming exemption for "records of internal deliberations".
Effectively, conditions, which have been established in the Supreme Court through implementation of the current electronic record system and undermining the integrity of the Office of the Clerk, amount to denial of access to the Court.
The Human Rights Alert's 2013 submission is titled, "integrity, or lack thereof, of the electronic record systems of the courts of the State of Israel", and subtitled, "a court, which refuses to certify its own records, is certified corrupt". 
The conduct of Bank of Israel under Governor Stanley Fischer, detailed in the underlying petition, permitted Israeli banks to fabricate their own banking regulations in the State of Israel in response to the US FATCA, and then permitted the same banks to extort compliance of their "US Persons" customers with such fabricated banking regulations. 
The petition alleges that conduct of Governor of Bank of Israel Stanley Fischer in this matter, "undermines the sovereignty…  the rule of law in the State of Israel…" and amounts to, "replacement of his loyalty to the State of Israel and its laws with loyalty to the laws of another nation and/or with the interests of financial institutions."
Conditions, both in banking regulation and in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel, documented in the petition and its processing, should raise concern regarding integrity and stability of the Israeli financial system.
Collusion between the courts and financial institution has been increasingly recognized as central to the criminality underlying the current financial and socio-economic crisis in the United States.

, ו"מזכירה ראשית" שרה ליפשיץ בבית המשפט העליון FATCAפישר,  

מכתבה של "מזכירה ראשית" שרה ליפשיץ נדחה על ידי העותר, כיוון ש: א. המכתב אינו מתייחס לחוקי מדינת ישראל, וב. שרה ליפשיץ חותמת כ"מזכירה ראשית", אך אין ברשותה כתב מינוי כדין למשרה זאת.  בג"ץ צרניק נ פישר, לחייב את נגיד בנק ישראל למלא את חובותיו לגבי הפיקוח על הבנקים, מתעד את הקשר ההדוק בין שחיתות בתי המשפט וכשל הפיקוח על הבנקים.  בתי המשפט במדינת ישראל הושחתו במידה חסרת תקדים בעשור האחרון, תחת נשיאי בית המשפט העליון אהרון ברק ודורית בייניש.

ירושלים, דצמבר 27 – מכתבה מיום ה-20 לדצמבר, 2012 של ה"מזכירה ראשית" של בית המשפט העליון, שרה ליפשיץ, נדחה על ידי העותר, דר' יוסף צרניק, מסייג לזכויות האדם.  מכתבה של הגב' ליפשיץ נוגע לבג"ץ צרניק נ פישר בבית המשפט העליון – עתירה לצו על תנאי לחייב את נגיד בנק ישראל למלא את חובותיו לגבי הפיקוח על הבנקים, ולמכתבו של דר' צרניק "הודעה בדבר פרישה מהליך בלתי תקין".

מכתבו של הדר' צרניק היום,  אומר:
החתום מטה אינו יכול לקבל מכתב זה כדבר שנכתב בתום לב:
1.       "במענה לטענותיך, לא נפל כל פגם בהליך" – אמירה זאת סתמית, ואינה מתייחסת כלל לתקינותם, או אי תקינותם של הרישומים בתיק הנ"ל לגבי חוקי מדינת ישראל בכלל, ולגבי תקנות סדר הדין בבית המשפט הגבוה לצדק, תשמ"ד-1984, בפרט.
2.       המכתב חתום על ידי, "שרה ליפשיץ, מזכירה ראשית", אך הן הגב' ליפשיץ והן הנהלת בתי המשפט ממשיכים בסירובם להמציא את כתב מינוייה של הגב' שרה ליפשיץ כ"מזכירה ראשית" של בית המשפט העליון של מדינת ישראל.  לפיכך, למועט אין זה ברור מה סמכותה של הגב' ליפשיץ להנפיק את המכתב הנ"ל ולחתום עליו כפי שעשתה.
חומר הראיות ככללו מורה שהגב' שרה ליפשיץ יושבת במשרדו של המזכיר הכללי של בית המשפט העליון של מדינת ישראל מ-2002, יותר מעשור, ללא כתב מינוי למשרה זאת כדין.

מכתבה של הגב' ליפשיץ מיום ה-20 לדצמבר נכתב בתגובה להודעתו של העותר, דר' יוסף צרניק, על פרישה מהליך בלתי תקין.

ההודעה אומרת:
ביום ה-15 לנובמבר, 2012, מסר העותר למזכירה הראשית שרה ליפשיץ, מכתב בנוגע לתקינות רישום הכתבים בתיק זה.  במכתב זה כתב העותר:
הכיתובים המופיעים במערכת המקוונת לניהול גישת הציבור לכתבי בית המשפט תחת התיק הנ"ל נראים יותר ויותר כמבולבלים, אם לא שקריים ומטעים: [1,2]
·         ביום ה-23 באוקטובר, 2012, הכיתוב תחת "אירועים" מורה שהוגש לרישום רק נייר אחד; העותר הגיש לרישום ביום זה שני ניירות.
·         ביום ה-5 באוקטובר, 2012, הכיתוב תחת "אירועים" מורה שהוגש לרישום "ערעור"; העותר מעולם לא הגיש לרישום כל "ערעור" בתיק זה, ואין זה ברור מהיכן יכול היה "ערעור" לנבוע בתיק זה.
·         ביום ה-7 באוקטובר, 2012, הכיתוב תחת "אירועים" מורה שהוגש לרישום "מסמך", ללא שם המגיש וללא כל פרטים אחרים לגבי טיב המסמך; העותר לא הגיש לרישום כל נייר ביום זה, וכמו-כן לא הומצא לו כל נייר שהוגש לרישום על ידי בית המשפט או צדדים אחרים ביום זה.
...
לפיכך, מבקש העותר שהמזכירה הראשית תמציא אישור של רשימת הכתבים שהתקבלו לרישום על ידי מזכירות בית המשפט בתיק העתירה הנ"ל... עם זאת, מבקש העותר שהמזכירה הראשית תמציא העתק של כתב מינוייה.
עד יום זה לא התקבלה כל תשובה בעניין זה מן המזכירות.  יש לציין שהמזכירה הראשית ענתה בזריזות על תכתובת קודמת בעניינים דומים.  עקב סירובה של המזכירה הראשית לענות בעניין זה ולתקן את הטעון תיקון, מן הראוי לראות את הכיתובים המופיעים תחת תיק זה במערכת המקוונת לניהול גישת הציבור לכתבים כשקריים ומטעים במכוון.
לפיכך אין העותר מוצא ראוי ונכון להגיש כתבים נוספים לרישום תחת תיק זה, והוא מוסר בזאת הודעה לגבי פרישתו מהליכים בתיק זה כמכתב למזכירות.  יחד עם זאת, ימשיך החתום מטה במאמציו לממש את זכותו למשפט הוגן ולתקנה יעילה מטעם בתי דין לאומיים להגנה על זכויותיו.
דו"ח סייג לזכויות האדם לשנת 2013 מתעד השחתה חסרת תקדים של הכתבים האלקטרוניים של בית המשפט העליון, החל בשנת 2002, תחת נשיא בית המשפט העליון אהרון ברק. הדו"ח מציג כתבים כוזבים רבים, הנושאים חתימה כביכול של המזכיר הראשי לשעבר, שמריהו כהן, ז"ל, עד חמש (5) שנים לאחר מותו.  בעוד המזכירה הראשית הנוכחית, שרה ליפשיץ, מחזיקה במשרתה במשך עשור, דחתה הנהלת בתי המשפט ב-2012 בקשה בכפוף לחוק חופש המידע לגבי כתב המינוי של שרה ליפשיץ, בטענה שזהו מסמך של "דיונים פנימיים".
למעשה, התנאים שהושררו בבית המשפט העליון על ידי הנהגת מערכת הכתבים האלקטרוניים הנוכחית וערעור אמינותה של מזכירות בית המשפט, כמוהם כשלילת זכות הגישה לבית המשפט העליון.
כותרתו של דו"ח סייג לזכויות האדם לשנת  2013 היא "אמינותם, או חוסר אמינותם של הכתבים האלקטרוניים של בתי המשפט במדינת ישראל".  כותרת המשנה של הדו"ח היא "בית דין, המסרב לאשר את החלטותיו הוא, כמוהו כבית דין המאושר כמושחת." 
העתירה עצמה מתעדת את התנהלותו של סטנלי פישר, המתירה לבנקים בישראל לבדות תקנות בנקאיות במדינת ישראל, בתגובה לחוק האמריקאי, וכן את ניסיונותיהם של הבנקים הישראליים לסחוט את ציותם של אזרחי ארה"ב בישראל לתקנות בדויות אלה.
העתירה טוענת שהתנהלותו של נגיד בנק ישראל, סטנלי פישר בעניין זה מערערת את ריבונותה של מדינת ישראל... את שלטון החוק במדינת ישראל... ומשקפת החלפת נאמנותו למדינת ישראל וחוקיה בנאמנות לאומה אחרת וחוקיה, או נאמנות לתאגידים בנקאיים וענייניהם.
התנאים השוררים הן בפיקוח על הבנקים, והן בבית המשפט העליון, כפי שהם משתקפים בעתירה ובטיפול בה בבית המשפט, מעלים חששות לגבי אמינותה ויציבותה של המערכת הפיננסית בישראל.
בתי המשפט והתאגידים הבנקאיים בארה"ב, מוכרים כיום יותר מתמיד כשותפים מרכזיים בפשיעה שבמרכזו של המשבר החברתי-כלכלי הנוכחי בארה"ב. (ראה ציטטות להלן)

LINKS
[1] 12-12-27  Zernik v Governor of the Bank of Israel Stanley Fischer (HCJ 7650/12) in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel – Dr Zernik's rejection of "Chief Clerk" Sarah Lifschitz letter of December 20, 2012
[2] 12-12-20 Zernik v Governor of the Bank of Israel Stanley Fischer (HCJ 7650/12) in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel – Response by "Chief Clerk" Sarah Lifschitz in re Notice of Withdrawal from Incompetent Process
[3] 12-12-11 Zernik v Governor of the Bank of Israel Stanley Fischer (HCJ 7650/12) in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel - Notice of Withdrawal from Incompetent Process
[4] 12-11-15 Zernik v Fischer (7650-12) Request for certification of docket and appointment record of the Chief Clerk
[5] 12-10-23 PRESS RELEASE – Petition alleges Bank of Israel Fischer patronizes criminality at Bank HaPoalim, BM
[6] 12-10-23 Zernik v Fischer (7650/12) in the High Court of Justice of the State of Israel – petition to compel the Governor of the Bank of Israel to perform his duties – online public access system record on the date of filing process
[7] 12-11-08 Zernik v Fischer (7650/12)  in the High Court of Justice of the State of Israel – petition to compel the Governor of the Bank of Israel to perform his duties – online public access system records
[8] 12-05-10 Human Right Alert,  Appendix I to Submission; 15th UPR - State of Israel - "Integrity, or lack thereof, of the electronic record systems of the courts of the State of Israel"
[9] 12-09-04 Zernik, J., "Integrity, or Lack Thereof, of the Electronic Record Systems of the Courts of the State of Israel", Data Analytics 1:31-38 (2012)
[10] 12-03-02 Freedom of Information request  (P-29-2012) on the Administration of Courts, in re: a) Appointment records of the Chief Clerks of the Supreme Court, b) Certification/apostille certification procedures of the Supreme Court
[11] 12-03-06 Freedom of Information response (P-29-2012) by the Administration of Courts, in re: a) Appointment records of the Chief Clerks of the Supreme Court, b) Certification/apostille certification procedures of the Supreme Court
[12] 12-03-28 Revised Freedom of Information request (P-29-2012) on the Administration of Courts,, in re: a) Appointment records of the Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court, and b) Certification procedures of the electronic records of the Supreme Court
_____________
Joseph Zernik, PhD
< josephzernik@humanrightsalertngo.org>
Sent from "1984", Iceland-based Internet Service Provider
_____________
Human Rights Alert (NGO)   
* United States - the 2010 submission of Human Rights Alert to the Human Rights Council (HRC) of the United Nations was reviewed and incorporated in the official HRC Professional Staff Report with a note referring to “corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California.”  
[1] 10-10-01 United Nations Human Rights Council Records for 2010 Review (UPR) of Human Rights in the United States, where Human Rights Alert (NGO) submission was incorporated with a note referring to "corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California."
* State of Israel  - the 2012 submission of Human Rights Alert to the HRC, titled, "Integrity, or lack thereof, of the electronic record systems of the courts of the State of Israel', is scheduled for review in January 2013.
[1] 12-06-04 Human Right Alert's Submission;  2013 UPR of the State of Israel: "Integrity, or lack thereof, of the electronic record systems of the courts of the State of Israel"
_____
Human Rights Alert online:  
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/   
Flag Counter: 145
http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert
Total Reads:
 945,129
Followers: 1,601
_____________________________
WHAT DID THE EXPERT SAY ABOUT THE CURRENT FINANCIAL CRISIS?
 "I think it's difficult to find a fraud of this size on the U.S. court system in U.S. history," said Raymond Brescia, a visiting professor at Yale Law School who has written articles analyzing the role of courts in the financial crisis. "I can't think of one where you have literally tens of thousands of fraudulent documents filed in tens of thousands of cases." Reuters (Jan 22, 2012)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/79572282/
*
 Foreclosure fraud: The homeowner nightmares continue” CNN (April 7, 2011)
*
 About 3 million homes have been repossessed since the housing boom ended in 2006… That number could balloon to about 6 million by 2013” Bloomberg (January 2011)
*
 "...a system in which only the little people have to obey the law, while the rich, and bankers especially, can cheat and defraud without consequences." Prof Paul Krugman, MIT (2011)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/50753639/
_____________________________
WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA?
*
 "...judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did not commit." 
Prof David Burcham, Dean, Loyola Law School, LA (2001) 
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29043589/
*
 "This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states... and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted."   Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Irvine Law School (2001) 
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27433920/
*
 "Innocent people remain in prison"
* "...the LA Superior Court and the DA office, the two other parts of the justice system that the Blue Panel Report recommends must be investigated relative to the integrity of the system, have not produced any response that we know of..." LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24902306 /
_____________________________
WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN CALIFORNIA?
*
 "...corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California."  United Nations Human Rights Council Staff Report (2010)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38566837/
_____________________________
WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE STATE COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES?
*
 "On July 26, 2010, Laurence Tribe, Senior Counsel for the United States Department of Justice, Access to Justice Initiative, delivered an important speech to the Conference of Chief Justices, challenging them to halt the disintegration of our state justice systems before they become indistinguishable from courts of third world nations."  Prof Laurence Tribe, Harvard Law School (2010), per National Defender Leadership Institute (2010)
http://www.nlada.net/library/article/national_dojspeechto%20chiefjustice07-26-2010_gideonalert 
_____________________________
WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE CONDITIONS IN THE PRISON IN MONROE COUNTY, TENESSEE?
*
 "What goes on there is more like gulags of centuries ago." ACLU
http://www.scribd.com/doc/72546279/
_____________________________
WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES?
*
 "More than 100 law professors have signed on to a letter released today that proposes congressional hearings and legislation aimed at fashioning "mandatory and enforceable" ethics rules for Supreme Court justices for the first time. The effort, coordinated by the liberal Alliance for Justice, was triggered by "recent media reports," the letter said, apparently referring to stories of meetings and other potential conflicts of interest involving Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas among others." More than 100 law professors, as reported by the Blog of the Legal Times (February 2011) 
http://www.scribd.com/doc/49586436/
_____________________________
WHAT DID CHIEF JUDGE OF THE US COURT OF APPEALS, 5TH CIRCUIT, SAY ABOUT THE US JUSTICE SYSTEM?
 
*
 "The American legal system has been corrupted almost beyond recognition..."  Chief Judge, US Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, Edith Jones, speaking before the Federalist Society of Harvard Law School (February 2003)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/50137887/
_____________________________
WHAT DID THE CHAIR OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE SAY ABOUT THE US JUSTICE SYSTEM?
* In a speech in Georgetown University, Senator Leahy, Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee called for a "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" on the US Department of Justice. Transcript of Senator Leahy speech (2009)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38472251/
____________________________

12-12-27 And the biggest lie of 2012 is… Benghazi

And the biggest lie of 2012 is… Obama, news media fingered for misleading tales

Posted on December 26, 2012 at 1:47 AM EST

By Aaron Klein
JERUSALEM — Information surrounding the Sept. 11th attacks against the U.S. mission in Benghazi has been so distorted by the Obama administration and so misreported by the news media that the issue was selected as WND’s “Biggest Lie of the Year.”
Immediately following the attacks, President Obama and other White House officials notoriously blamed supposed anti-American sentiment leading to the violent events on an obscure anti-Muhammad video on YouTube they claimed was responsible for supposedly popular civilian protests that they said took place outside the U.S. mission in Benghazi, protests, they claimed, that devolved into a jihadist onslaught.
However, vivid accounts provided by the State Department and intelligence officials later made clear no such popular demonstration took place. Instead, video footage from Benghazi reportedly shows an organized group of armed men attacking the compound, the officials said.
‘Consulate’?
Media coverage of the events has been so dismal that even the most basic understanding of what happened is being distorted. The vast majority of all news media coverage worldwide refer to the U.S. facility that was attacked as a “consulate” even though the government itself has been careful to call it a “mission.”
WND has filed numerous reports quoting Middle East security sources describing the mission in Benghazi as serving as a meeting place to coordinate aid for the rebel-led insurgencies in the Middle East.
Among the tasks performed inside the building was collaborating with Arab countries on the recruitment of fighters – including jihadists – to target Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, the officials said.
Whether the news media report on what was allegedly transpiring at the mission or not, their calling the building a “consulate” is misleading.
A consulate typically refers to the building that officially houses a consul, who is the official representatives of the government of one state in the territory of another. The U.S. consul in Libya, Jenny Cordell, works out of the embassy in Tripoli.
Consulates at times function as junior embassies, providing services related to visas, passports and citizen information.
On Aug. 26, about two weeks before his was killed, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens attended a ceremony marking the opening of consular services at the Tripoli embassy.
The main role of a consulate is to foster trade with the host and care for its own citizens who are traveling or living in the host nation.
Diplomatic missions, on the other hand, maintain a more generalized role. A diplomatic mission is simply a group of people from one state or an international inter-governmental organization present in another state to represent matters of the sending state or organization in the receiving state.
However, according to a State Department report released last week, the U.S. facility in Benghazi did not fit the profile of a diplomatic mission, either.
According to the 39-page report released this week by independent investigators probing the Sept. 11 attacks at the diplomatic facility, the U.S. mission in Benghazi was set up without the knowledge of the new Libyan government, as WND reported.
“Another key driver behind the weak security platform in Benghazi was the decision to treat Benghazi as a temporary, residential facility, not officially notified to the host government, even though it was also a full-time office facility,” the report states.
“This resulted in the Special Mission compound being excepted from office facility standards and accountability under the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999 (SECCA) and the Overseas Security Policy Board (OSPB).”
The report, based on a probe led by former U.S. diplomat Thomas Pickering, calls the facility a “Special U.S. Mission.”
The report further refers to the attacked facility as a “U.S. Special Mission,” adding yet another qualifier to the title of the building.
Violated international law?
WND further exclusively reported the facility may have violated the terms of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which governs the establishment of overseas missions.
Like most nations, the U.S. is a signatory to the 1961 United Nations convention.
Article 2 of the convention makes clear the host government must be informed about the establishment of any permanent foreign mission on its soil: “The establishment of diplomatic relations between States, and of permanent diplomatic missions, takes place by mutual consent.”
According to the State report, there was a decision “to treat Benghazi as a temporary, residential facility,” likely disqualifying the building from permanent mission status if the mission was indeed temporary.
However, the same sentence in the report note the host government was not notified about the Benghazi mission “even though it was also a full-time office facility.”
Articles 12 of the Vienna Convention dictates, “The sending State may not, without the prior express consent of the receiving State, establish offices forming part of the mission in localities other than those in which the mission itself is established.”
If the Benghazi mission was a “full-time office facility,” it may violate Article 12 in that the mission most likely was considered an arm of the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, which served as the main U.S. mission to Libya.
Rice in hot water
Obama was not the only White House official to mislead on Benghazi.
As WND reported, in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice may have deliberately misled the public when she went on television news shows and called the facility that had been targeted a “consulate.”
Much of the media attention and political criticism has been focused on Rice’s other statements immediately after the Benghazi attacks, primarily her blaming an obscure YouTube film vilifying the Islamic figure Muhammad for what she claimed were popular protests outside the U.S. mission.
Video and intelligence evidence has demonstrated there were no popular protests outside the Benghazi facility that day and that the attack was carried out by jihadists.
However, in defending itself against recent claims that the White House scrubbed the CIA’s initial intelligence assessment on the Benghazi attacks of references to al-Qaida, Obama administration officials might have unintentionally implicated themselves in another, largely unnoticed scandal.
Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes contended the White House made only small, factual edits to the CIA’s intelligence assessment, referring to one edit in particular.
“We were provided with points by the intelligence community that represented their assessment,” Rhodes said aboard Air Force One en route to Asia. “The only edit made by the White House was the factual edit about how to refer to the facility.”
Rhodes said the White House and State Department changed a reference in the CIA report from “consulate” to “diplomatic facility.”
“Other than that, we were guided by the points that were provided by the intelligence community. So I can’t speak to any other edits that may have been made.”
Further, Politico reported Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, was adamant that the White House only changed the reference to the Benghazi facility.
“There was only one thing that was changed … and that was, the word ‘consulate’ was changed to ‘mission,’” Feinstein said. “That’s the only change that anyone in the White House made, and I have checked this out.”
If the White House intentionally changed the reference to the Benghazi facility from a “consulate” to a “mission,” why did Rice repeatedly refer to the facility as a “consulate” when she engaged in a media blitz in the immediate aftermath of the Benghazi attack?
CBS, Reuters implicated in misleading, hiding info
The news media, meanwhile, may have been implicit in covering up the Benghazi tale.
Two days before last month’s presidential election, CBS posted additional portions of a Sept. 12 “60 Minutes” interview where Obama made statements that contradicted his earlier claims on the attacks.
In the finally released portions of the interview, Obama would not say whether he thought the attack was terrorism. Yet he would later emphasize at a presidential debate that in the Rose Garden the same day, he had declared the attack an act of terror.
Reuters was also directly implicated by WND in possibly false reporting.
In the immediate aftermath of the attack, Reuters filed a report quoting a purported civilian protester by his first name who described a supposedly popular demonstration against an anti-Muhammad film outside the U.S. building – a popular protest that reportedly didn’t take place and thus could not have been related to the film.
Aid to al-Qaida, other jihadists?
Show original