Urusi yaionya Uingereza kutolitisha Taifa hilo

[Donatila]

SERIKALI ya Urusi imeionya Uingereza kuacha kulitisha taifa lenye nguvu ya nyuklia.

Badala yake imemtaka Waziri Mkuu wa Uingereza, awasilishe sampuli ya sumu ya Novichok iliyotumika kumshambulia jasusi wa zamani wa Urusi.

Kwa mujibu wa Ubalozi wa Urusi mjini London, ni kupitia sampuli hiyo ndiyo itaweza kuifanya Urusi ifikirie kutoa maelezo inayotaka Uingereza kuhusu sumu hiyo.

Kutokana na msimamo huo wa Serikali ya Rais Vladimir Putin, saa 24 zilizotolewa na Uingereza kuitaka Urusi kutoa maelezo kuhusu kuhusishwa kwake na shambulizi la sumu dhidi ya Sergei Skripal na binti yake Yulia zimemalizika pasipo kueleza chochote.

Uhusiano kati ya Uingereza na Urusi umezorota kwa haraka katika kipindi cha siku 10 tangu jasusi huyo na binti yake kushambuliwa kwa sumu mjini Salisbury, kusini magharibi mwa Uingereza.

Juzi Waziri Mkuu wa Uingereza, Theresa May, alisema kuna uwezekano mkubwa Urusi inahusika kwa njia moja au nyingine kwa sababu imeshindwa kudhibiti sumu hiyo.

Lakini Urusi kupitia ubalozi wake mjini London, ilisisitiza haitatekeleza wito huo hadi pale itakapopokea sampuli ya kemikali hiyo, huku pia ikitoa mwito kufanyika uchunguzi wa pamoja kuhusu hilo.

Ubalozi huo umeongeza Urusi haihusiki na shambulizi hilo kwa namna yoyote na kuonya Uingereza inapaswa kutambua watajibu vikali adhabu yoyote itakayotolewa.

Umesema hizo ni njama za kuivuruga Urusi inayoandaa michuano ya mwaka huu ya Kombe la Dunia.

May alisema hatua kali zitachukuliwa dhidi ya Urusi iwapo itashindwa kutoa maelezo ya kina kuhusu tuhuma hizo kufikia usiku wa kuamkia jana.

Hatua zinazofikiriwa ni pamoja na kuzuia mali za viongozi wa Urusi na maofisa wengine wa nchi hiyo.

Pia kuzuia Urusi kuwekeza katika masoko ya kifedha ya Uingereza na kuwafukuza wanadiplomasia wa nchi hiyo.

May alitarajia kuainisha hatua hizo mbele ya Bunge jana baada ya mkutano wa Baraza la Usalama la Taifa.



Mpekuzi

 

[MALCOM LUMUMBA]

Alichokisema Theresa May juzi bungeni ni kwamba lile Shambulizi la kemikali ni "An Act of Aggression" kwa minajili hiyo basi wanaruhusiwa kutumia Ibara namba 5 ya Mkataba wa NATO inayosema "Shambulio dhidi ya mwanachama moja ni shambulio dhidi ya wote" Sasa subiri ambavyo watamshambulia na vikwazo, maana kijeshi washashindwa kabisa.

Maswali ya kujiuliza:
1. Kwanini Urusi atake kufanya hichi kitu wakati kuna Uchaguzi tarehe 18 mwezi huu ???
2. Kwanini Urusi ataka kufanya huu unyama wakati mwaka huu kutakuwa na kombe la dunia nchini humo ???

Update: Leo tarehe 19/3/2018
Putin kasema hivi: It's nonsense trying to think Russia tried to poison Skripals ahead of elections & world cup.

Source: 'It's nonsense' to think Russia tried to poison Skripals ahead of elections & World Cup - Putin

CC: wick does this make any sense bro ??
Palantir

 

[Nyani Ngabu]

Naona siku hizi Urusi ndo amekuwa wa kulaumiwa kila kitu!

 

[Kichwa Kichafu]

Alichokisema Theresa May juzi bungeni ni kwamba lile Shambulizi la kemikali ni "An Act of Aggression" kwa minajili hiyo basi wanaruhusiwa kutumia Ibara namba 5 ya Mkataba wa NATO inayosema "Shambulio dhidi ya mwanachama moja ni hsambulio dhidi ya wote"

Maswali ya kujiuliza:
1. Kwanini Urusi atake kufanya hichi kitu wakati kuna Uchaguzi tarehe 18 mwezi huu ???
2. Kwanini Urusi ataka kufanya huu unyama wakati mwaka huu kutakuwa na kombe la dunia nchini humo ???

Hii yote ni kumchafua Mrusi

 

[Mgagaa na Upwa]

Hii yote ni kumchafua Mrusi

Mrusi alishachafuka kitambo tu,achafuke mara ngapi!

 

[TUJITEGEMEE]

Russians are really mathematicians...they are intelligent...they know how to assemble stuff logically. Hawana wawakilishi "vilaza" kwenye sehemu wanapotakiwa kuwakilishwa. kikao cha jana cha UNSC kimenipa mwanga zaidi juu ya Ndugu zetu hawa wa Russia.

 

[Imeloa]

Russia aache ubabe kwani hautamsaidia hasa wakati huu ambapo anajaribu kuokoa uchumi wake.

 

[Babu la Bara]

Naona siku hizi Urusi ndo amekuwa wa kulaumiwa kila kitu!

Wanamshambulia coz washamaliza kwa waarabu na waafrika so huyo ndio mbaya anayefuatia. Wakimalizana nae ataingia china maana naona korea kaskazini washatepeta.[emoji41][emoji41][emoji41][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23].

 

[mnyikungu]

Anasema tuzaliane...sasa kama tunazaa matahira kuna faida gani ya kuzaliana....warusi wanastahili kuzaliana kwasababu wanazaa watu smart

 

[Prof]

Theresa May yuko sahihi kwa mujibu wa Incidence yenyewe ya mtu kushambuliwaa akiwa kwenye Jurisdiction ya Uingereza/England...Ila kuhusu an act of Aggression, inawezekana asiwe sahihi.

An act of aggression means "the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations". Hivyo basi kulingana na definion hiyo hapo juu, sioni act of aggression/uchokozi. Ili kuwepo an act amounting to aggression, lazima kuwepo viashiria kama:-

1. Uvamizi wa kijeshi/use of armed force
2. The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof;
3. Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State etc.

Kwa upande mwingine, Theresa May angetumia neno "Crime of Aggression" badala ya "Act of Aggression" kwani kulingana na tukio lenyewe lina-fall kwenye crime of of aggression. Lakini cha kushangaza, British haitambui crime of aggression. Mwaka 2006, The House of Lord, wakisikiliza kesi ya R vs Jones, walikuja na msimamo kuwa Crime of aggression haipo katika sheria ya Kiingereza kama inavyotumika ndani ya Uingereza.

what is a crime of aggression? ni aina fulani ya uhalifu ambapo mtu anapanga, anaanzisha, au anafanya kitendo cha ukatili kwa kutumia jeshi la serikali linalokiuka Mkataba wa Umoja wa Mataifa. Tendo hilo limehukumiwa kama ukiukwaji kulingana na tabia yake, mvuto, na kiwango.
Nimalizie kwa kusema kuwa Matendo ya Urusi hayakubaliki, lakini pia, hoja ya Uingereza kuhusu an act of aggression ...haina mashiko

 

[MALCOM LUMUMBA]

Theresa May yuko sahihi kwa mujibu wa Incidence yenyewe ya mtu kushambuliwaa akiwa kwenye Jurisdiction ya Uingereza/England...Ila kuhusu an act of Aggression, inawezekana asiwe sahihi.

An act of aggression means "the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations". Hivyo basi kulingana na definion hiyo hapo juu, sioni act of aggression/uchokozi. Ili kuwepo an act amounting to aggression, lazima kuwepo viashiria kama:-

1. Uvamizi wa kijeshi/use of armed force
2. The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof;
3. Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State etc.

Kwa upande mwingine, Theresa May angetumia neno "Crime of Aggression" badala ya "Act of Aggression" kwani kulingana na tukio lenyewe lina-fall kwenye crime of of aggression. Lakini cha kushangaza, British haitambui crime of aggression. Mwaka 2006, The House of Lord, wakisikiliza kesi ya R vs Jones, walikuja na msimamo kuwa Crime of aggression haipo katika sheria ya Kiingereza kama inavyotumika ndani ya Uingereza.

what is a crime of aggression? ni aina fulani ya uhalifu ambapo mtu anapanga, anaanzisha, au anafanya kitendo cha ukatili kwa kutumia jeshi la serikali linalokiuka Mkataba wa Umoja wa Mataifa. Tendo hilo limehukumiwa kama ukiukwaji kulingana na tabia yake, mvuto, na kiwango.
Nimalizie kwa kusema kuwa Matendo ya Urusi hayakubaliki, lakini pia, hoja ya Uingereza kuhusu an act of aggression ...haina mashiko

Mkuu Prof good to see you bro,
The definition of An act of aggression is Janus-faced. What Theresa said can amount to an act of aggression, because it doesn't only need A legitimate use of armed forces of one state making military incursion into another states territory.

An act of aggression can be done even by state agents or even armed groups so long as they work under the umbrella of that country sending them. This was very clear in the case of Nicaragua v United States..The (International Court of Justice) ICJ was of the opinion that America was an aggressor even thou she did not send her armed forces but instead she armed the Sandinista rebels (So the jurisprudence of the Court with regard to Military Aggression was very broadened)

The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) set a firm boundaries in the case of Dusko Tadič v The Prosecutor by giving out the tests of measuring whether the an armed group acts on behalf of another state. There is what we call Effective Control and Overall Control Tests (I advice you to read the case, its very Interesting. I am willing to provide you with materials for this if you may be interested )

NB: Henceforth, do not forget that an Act of aggression invokes double penalty under International law. At first a Nation State gets punished for international wrongful act under the Public International Law Principle of STATE RESPONSIBILITY. A State may be sanctioned or isolated by the international community or sometimes the security council may invoke Chapter Seven VII of the United Nations Charter 1945 and authorize military action against it. Refer the issue of North Korea in 1950, after she invaded South Korea by the crossing the 38th Parallel. On the other hand refer the Lockerbie Incident of 1988 where Libyan remote state operatives bombed the Pan-Am flight 103 (Cargo Plane) but the whole State suffered through sanctions and Isolation. And finally you can read the Rainbow Warrior Case, where French spies sunk a Environmental activists ship which was there to stop French Nuclear Bombing: France as a state paid indemnity fee for reparations to the families who lost their beloved ones and the spies who caused the homicide where detained in a remote island for three years (but they got out earlier than this)

At second instance,
A Crime of aggression can target the state officials who have perpetrated or orchestrated the Crime of Aggression. And this is because Criminal Responsibility is Individual Responsibility (Here you can refer the Leipzig trials after The First World War and Nuremberg trials after the Second World War). But unfortunately, since 1945 Nuremberg and Far East Military Trials no other state official has ever been prosecuted for the crime of aggression.

The Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC) lists it down as one of the International Crimes but it is not effective and not is not used. It was supposed to have been passed it after the Ugandan Convention in 2015 (If i remember correctly) but state officials members to the treaty are very unwilling to pass it (It is very dangerous to allow the crime to be tried by the Court)

In the current case,
Russia as a state can be held liable for An act of aggression which invokes the Principle of State Responsibility specifically under the periphery of Imputability theory because the act was state sponsored (if the British can only prove the claim)

And if they want to prosecute Vladimir Putin and cronies. They can only accuse them of Crimes Against humanity but again its too difficult because Russia is not a signatory of The Rome Statute which creates the ICC. And the crime of aggression is not operational within the Statute or anywhere..[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

NB: It just gets better and better......
And they only use state responsibility because that's the only argument they have (Yesterday Security Council meeting with regard to Salisbury Attacks was so hooooot, please watch it bro)

 

[Prof]

Mkuu Prof good to see you bro,
The definition of An act of aggression is Janus-faced. What Theresa said can amount to an act of aggression, because it doesn't only need A legitimate use of armed forces of one state making military incursion into another states territory.

An act of aggression can be done even by state agents or even armed groups so long as they work under the umbrella of that country sending them. This was very clear in the case of Nicaragua v United States..The ICJ was of the opinion that America was an aggressor even thou she did not send her armed forces but instead she armed the Sandinista rebels (So the jurisprudence is broadened)

The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) set a firm boundaries in the case of Dusko Tadič v The Prosecutor by giving out the tests of measuring whether the an armed group acts on behalf of another state. There is what we call Effective Control and Overall Control Tests (I advice you to read the case and I am willing to provide you with materials for this)

NB: Henceforth, do not forget that an Act of aggression invokes double penalty under International law. At first a Nation State get punished for international wrongful act under the Public International Law Principle of STATE RESPONSIBILITY. A State may be sanctioned or isolated by the international community or sometimes the security council may invoke chapter seven of the United Nations Charter and authorize military action against it. Refer the issue of North Korea in 1950. On the other hand refer the Lockerbie Incident where Libyan remote state operatives bombed the Pan-Am flight but the whole state suffered. And finally you can read the Rainbow Warrior Case.....

At second instance,
A Crime of aggression can target the state officials who have perpetrated or orchestrated the Crime of Aggression. And this is because Criminal Responsibility is Individual Responsibility (Here you can refer the Leipzig trials and Nuremberg trials). Since 1945 Nuremberg and Far East Trials no other state official has ever been prosecuted for the crime of aggression.

The ICC lists it down as one of the International Crimes but it was supposed to have passed it After the Ugandan Convention in 2015 (If i remember correctly) but state officials are very unwilling to pass it..

In the current case,
Russia as a state can be held liable for An act of aggression which invokes the Principle of State Responsibility specifically under the periphery of Imputability theory because the act was state sponsored (if the British can only prove the claim)

And if they wan to try Vladimir Putin and cronies. They can only accuse them of Crimes Against humanity but again its too difficult because Russia is not a signatory of The Rome Statute that creates the ICC. And the crime of aggression is not operational within the Statute or anywhere..[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

NB: It just gets better and better......
And they only use state responsibility because that's the only argument they have (Yesterday Security Council meeting was hooooot, please watch it bro)

Good to hear from you sir and thanks for the good analysis. I will get back to you in a morning. stay blessed

 

[MALCOM LUMUMBA]

Good to hear from you sir and thanks for the good analysis. I will get back to you in a morning. stay blessed

You too bro.

 

[Smart boy Shewedy]

Yangu macho Tuu, namngojea mbabe wangu jibu atakalo rudisha

 

[JustDoItNow]

Alichokisema Theresa May juzi bungeni ni kwamba lile Shambulizi la kemikali ni "An Act of Aggression" kwa minajili hiyo basi wanaruhusiwa kutumia Ibara namba 5 ya Mkataba wa NATO inayosema "Shambulio dhidi ya mwanachama moja ni hsambulio dhidi ya wote" Sasa subiri ambavyo watamshambulia na vikwazo, maana kijeshi washashindwa kabisa.

Maswali ya kujiuliza:
1. Kwanini Urusi atake kufanya hichi kitu wakati kuna Uchaguzi tarehe 18 mwezi huu ???
2. Kwanini Urusi ataka kufanya huu unyama wakati mwaka huu kutakuwa na kombe la dunia nchini humo ???

CC: wick does this make any sense bro ??

kwani si walishamuwekea vikwazo tangu ishu ya cremea na ukraine? au?
Leo pia nimesikia marekani wanalalamika kuwa urusi inadukua mifumo yao ya umeeme na maji

 

[JustDoItNow]

Russia aache ubabe kwani hautamsaidia hasa wakati huu ambapo anajaribu kuokoa uchumi wake.

uchumi wake siku zote huko strong. wewe unasikiliza propaganda za wamagharibi ndo wanampaka matope.

 

[MALCOM LUMUMBA]

kwani si walishamuwekea vikwazo tangu ishu ya cremea na ukraine? au?
Leo pia nimesikia marekani wanalalamika kuwa urusi inadukua mifumo yao ya umeeme na maji

Crimea ni vikwazo vilivyotakana na Uvamizi wa Urusi nchinin Ukraine. Hivi ni vikwazo vingine ambavyo vinahusisha urusi kufanya shambulio la kijeshi nchini Uingereza. Hivyo wanaongezea vingine ili kuvunja kabisa mgongo wa Uchumi wa Urusi.

 

[Mwambwaro]

Mbabe WA Dunia Urus ndo kiboko ya nch za magharibi wanaishia Kulia Lia kila siku US anaumiza kichwa lkn Wap

 

[mng'ato]

Hawa wakuda wapigane tu tena wasicheleweshane kama ni mwisho wa dunia kufika na ufike tu.

 

[Consigliere]

Uingereza nadhani nayo imeanza kupwaya katika list ya mataifa ambayo ni headstrongs duniani. Wanawezaje ku jump to an Act of Aggression basing on assumptions? As of now sijaona popote pale wakiwa wame proof assumptions zao on Russia. However, huu mchezo umechezwa kitoto sana, hii si kati ya michezo inayoweza kuchezwa na Russia at all.
Yaani Russia watumie mbinu za akina Mwigulu? Mambosasa na akina Bashite? Huu mchezo umechezwa frim within waingereza wenyewe halafu they came out barking.