Amal Alamuddin and her work

LornaDoone wrote:Snowdon, Manning = traitors.  Fuck them both.

A 'yep' and 'amen' to that.

Dirty secrets??? It is not like he reveled someone being involved in child porn. He just explained politics in more Details  [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

and

defend the truth [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]  ....I see them hiding and complaining about they living conditions but I don't see them defending. They never defended anything they just LEAKED Information. That was all....

Well said, without my venom.

Keep on reading ladies, one day you will get there, ...  Amal Clooney is defending Assange, ... so how can you old bats still be her big fans ? 

"old bats" really Atlante.  You resort to insults AGAIN.

Get a clue.

Atalante - You're defending him too, so what does that make you?

First, I'd like to address Globalchick:

Way2Old4Dis wrote:

No one really cares about another Muslim in jail. Everyone's had enough of hearing about them, people are sick of hearing about terrorists, ISIS etc. If Amal is going to make that her focus she will find she gets nowhere fast. 

Saying "Muslim" and "terrorists and ISIS" in the same breath, as if they are interchangeable or permanently linked, is appallingly bigoted.

Perhaps I should clarify. This is not MY view but reflects the weariness that many people feel about constantly seeing these stories in the news.
______________________________________________________________________


You couldn't be more wrong. You are probably reading comments on The Daily Mail or other bullshit sites. You do know that there a few nutballs that have umpteen usernames/email addys that post incessantly on any website that features a Clooney article, don't you?

They/it are not representative of the public's opinion, I assure you, even if they agree with your views. You have had some interesting arguments but you have gotten increasingly antagonistic towards George, Amal and now Angelina. I don't read here often but it looks like you really have had an increasing amount of animosity, for some reason. You might want to think about that.


As far as Assange, Snowdon and Manning? You'd be surprised how many Americans do not feel that they are traitors. I am one of them. They did not leak information that would put anyone at risk, at leat not intentionally. Did they make mistakes, yes, but do I consider them traitors, no.


Now, as far as Fahmy is concerned? He is one of three journalists incarcerated in this story but there are many more that don't rate the status quo. Never the less, this particular case is an abomination of justice in anyone's book and if by putting it out there in the media by Amal etal helps free them, all the better.
If by Amal being Mrs. Clooney helps, so be it.

lamby wrote:
Perhaps I should clarify. This is not MY view but reflects the weariness that many people feel about constantly seeing these stories in the news.
______________________________________________________________________

Sorry but I think you are wrong. When you post a comment here in the Forum then it is YOUR VIEW and your opinion. If you Quote "how other People feel" about then better to post a source. If you can't then it is your view/opinion.

Amal Clooney when she represents a client is doing her job. She has studied and worked hard to get where she and is from all accounts quite good at her job. This is the field she chose and loves good for her.

Nicky80 wrote:

lamby wrote:
Perhaps I should clarify. This is not MY view but reflects the weariness that many people feel about constantly seeing these stories in the news.
______________________________________________________________________

Sorry but I think you are wrong. When you post a comment here in the Forum then it is YOUR VIEW and your opinion. If you Quote "how other People feel" about then better to post a source. If you can't then it is your view/opinion.

Nicky, you misunderstood Lamby. Lamby isn't saying this, she is quoting Globalchick, see Globalchick's post November 6.

These multiquotes get confusing: Globalchick- W2O4D-Globalchick-Lamby. 

Lamby's post is the first Line ":First I like to adress Globalchick."Then it continues beneath the line; "You couldn't be more wrong."

So, is Amal no longer representing Julian?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Swedish Court Upholds Order for Arrest of Julian Assange
By ALAN COWELLNOV. 20, 2014



LONDON — A Swedish court on Thursday upheld a four-year-old order for the detention of Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, over accusations of sexual assault that inspired a lengthy legal battle before he took refuge in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London.
Lawyers for Mr. Assange, 43, had sought to have the order withdrawn on the grounds that it could not be enforced while he was in the embassy, and they also contended that it was restricting his civil rights.
But the Swedish court rejected the legal argument that it should “set aside the detention solely because Julian Assange is in an embassy and the detention order cannot be enforced at present for that reason,” Reuters reported.
The ruling was a bitter defeat for Mr. Assange, an Australian who fled to the modest embassy in London’s upmarket Knightsbridge neighborhood two years ago, after Britain ordered his extradition to Sweden in February 2011.
“It is astonishing,” Michael Ratner, a prominent American civil rights lawyer who helps to represent Mr. Assange, said in a statement about the Swedish court’s ruling. “He continues to be detained without charge, and the court concedes that this can continue for years to come.”
Sweden has not formally indicted Mr. Assange, but prosecutors in Stockholm want to question him about allegations of sexual misconduct relating to two women he encountered during a visit there in 2010. He denies the allegations.
Mr. Assange filed unsuccessful appeals in British courts against the extradition order before taking refuge in the Embassy of Ecuador, which granted him asylum in 2012.
There had been speculation that, if he had succeeded in his appeal on Thursday, Mr. Assange might have left the embassy. He has said he fears that if extradited to Sweden, the authorities there would send him to the United States.
Mr. Assange has expressed a willingness to meet with Swedish prosecutors in London, an offer that the prosecutors have turned down.
The United States has not publicly indicted Mr. Assange or formally sought his extradition. But American investigations continue into WikiLeaks’ publication of classified military and diplomatic material on its website. Some of the material was published by news organizations, including The New York Times.
In August, at a news conference at the embassy, Mr. Assange said he would “be leaving the embassy soon,” but did not elaborate on his reasons for saying so. British news reports have said he was in poor health, suffering from ailments including arrhythmia, very high blood pressure and a chronic lung problem.

Rick Gladstone contributed reporting from New York.

Silje wrote:

Nicky80 wrote:

lamby wrote:
Perhaps I should clarify. This is not MY view but reflects the weariness that many people feel about constantly seeing these stories in the news.
______________________________________________________________________

Sorry but I think you are wrong. When you post a comment here in the Forum then it is YOUR VIEW and your opinion. If you Quote "how other People feel" about then better to post a source. If you can't then it is your view/opinion.

Nicky, you misunderstood Lamby. Lamby isn't saying this, she is quoting Globalchick, see Globalchick's post November 6.

These multiquotes get confusing: Globalchick- W2O4D-Globalchick-Lamby. 

Lamby's post is the first Line ":First I like to adress Globalchick."Then it continues beneath the line; "You couldn't be more wrong."

Ah ok thanks....I read it wrong then. Sorry

melbert wrote:So, is Amal no longer representing Julian?

I think (and I can be wrong) that Amal and her team represent him not to be extradition to Sweden. And the American civil right lawyer represent him for The Swedish court against the sexual assault. That is my guess......

Is Assange "being detained" if he's hiding out in an embassy? I don't think so.

And he (and his legal team) don't seem to get that he, as the defendant, doesn't get to call the shots. He can make all the offers he wants, and invite prosecutors to meet him where he thinks things should happen, but that's not his call. The prosecutors aren't obliged to do anything special for him, even if it is "allowed," and he shouldn't be shocked at the notion that the people who want him under their jurisdiction don't bend to his desires. What an arrogant asshole.

Nicky80: Deleted offensive comment

Atalante this is you last warning. If you insult a poster on this forum one more time you will be banned for a period of time and then it is up to Katiedot to ban you for good.

Julian Assange  requested political asylum from the Ecuadorian government and as a result lives in the Ecudorian embassy in London. Amal is part of his legal team in Sweden's attempt to have him extradicted through the courts.

However, the Swedish authorities have made things a bit difficult by insisting he goes to them, when it is perfectly possible for the Swedish prosecutor to visit him. No one's quite sure why the Swedish prosecutor has decided not to do that

Am reading a book about Assange now. How ironic that this man has been awarded several peace prizes........

Bloody obvious why the prosecutor ain't going, ..., NO CHARGES !  Keep on reading, one day you'll get there ! 

Nicky80 wrote:Atalante this is you last warning. If you insult a poster on this forum one more time you will be banned for a period of time and then it is up to Katiedot to ban you for good.

I have to say there are some serious double standards on this forum. I never saw Atalante's post but I have seen EXTREMELY insulting comments by long term posters here directed at anyone who doesn't think the sun shines out of George's behind or doesn't think that Amal is the second coming of Jesus Christ. Those posters get away with insulting others while people like Atalante get threatened with being banned? Doesn't seem right to me. If insulting other posters is behaviour worthy of punishment then it must be applied to the long time posters here too and we all know who I am talking about.

I think (and I can be wrong) that Amal and her team represent him not to be extradition to Sweden. And the American civil right lawyer represent him for The Swedish court against the sexual assault. That is my guess......

In the past Amal has defended terrorists and people accused of war crimes and people like that. In future I don't think Amal will be defending people like Assange or anyone where it might generate bad publicity for George Clooney in the USA. I think the controversial "clients" will be quietly dropped because Amal is "too busy". In future all her prospective clients and any work she does IMO will be vetted by Stan and George and only ones George and Stan agree to will be taken on. I think any client will be weighed up against any risk to George's image. The recent UN Gaza Commission thing was embarrassing and George was lucky the media didn't make more of it. It's obvious that Amal accepted it verbally - it was probably her dream job - and then George and Stan found out about it and there was a retraction 24 hours later. No way does the UN put a press release up on their website without the agreement of the parties. 

George is firmly in control of the relationship with Amal. She quit smoking. She quit Twitter and Facebook. She turned down the Gaza enquiry. She became punctual whereas before she was always late according to her best friend. She took up his cause celebre - the Elgin marbles. She/Stan organised the pap walks before the wedding when Amal strolled around London in high heels for the paparazzi. And now Amal is staying out of sight BECAUSE George and Stan want that. Amal will do as she's told. For now she's excited by everything. She gets to wear beautiful gowns. George paid to get her teeth done. He pays for make up artists and hairdressers. Amal has been given a credit card to buy obscenely expensive designer clothes with. He bought Amal a multimillion dollar mansion in London. She is being bought and paid for. A kept woman. Someone who does the bidding of her master. 

But the novelty will wear off soon. Amal IS an intelligent woman there is no doubting that. Right now she's acting like a starstruck woman and a giddy school girl. She's eager to please. Her maid of honour said that Amal at 36 was still looking for her Prince Charming. The perfect man. Well George ain't that man. He is a 53 year old man, looking 60, who is set in his ways and who has never had a relationship in his entire life that has lasted beyond a couple of years. He's damaged goods emotionally and will never love any woman more than he loves himself. In fact I think he is incapable of really loving a woman at all. 

This is a couple who barely know each other and the rose coloured glasses will come off very fast. Amal was a woman who controlled her OWN destiny before. Now she doesn't. Everything is about George. His career and his image. The luxury lifestyle, private jets and designer clothes will compensate for a while but not forever. Amal is merely a handbag rolled out and coming and going at his beck and call like the others. At some point she will realise it. He is everything, a big Hollywood star. She is nothing in that world. 

She's just a pawn in George's image plans who was married not because she was the right woman, but because the timing was right for George and he wanted to project a new serious image. Amal was of use and George thought IMO that the public would love her. But they don't. That will disappoint him. Because the public loved the last respectable woman he dated - Celine Balitran. But Celine was incredibly beautiful and had a lovely energy - without the thirst for the cameras and ostentatious love of luxury that Amal has that the public find so offputting. I'm sure Stan will throw everything he can at trying to make the public warm to Amal so that she enhances George's image. But sadly she was just the wrong choice. And no amount of spin is going to change that. The over the top wedding was a giant PR misstep. It should have been a one day affair - not a 3 day affair. Mistakes were made that will be hard to rectify from a PR perspective. Will be interesting to see how all this turns out. I think their relationship will implode spectacularly privately within a year. But we won't know about it for a couple of years after that.

Did that relationship ever start ? The contract yes, the relation ??? 

globalchick wrote:

Nicky80 wrote:Atalante this is you last warning. If you insult a poster on this forum one more time you will be banned for a period of time and then it is up to Katiedot to ban you for good.

I have to say there are some serious double standards on this forum. I never saw Atalante's post but I have seen EXTREMELY insulting comments by long term posters here directed at anyone who doesn't think the sun shines out of George's behind or doesn't think that Amal is the second coming of Jesus Christ. Those posters get away with insulting others while people like Atalante get threatened with being banned? Doesn't seem right to me. If insulting other posters is behaviour worthy of punishment then it must be applied to the long time posters here too and we all know who I am talking about.

No I don't know what/who you are talking about globalchick. But please show evidence that long time posters have insulted other Posters. If you can't show evidence then please stop creating rumors. House rules apply for everyone.

I think you just don't like long time posters on this Forum as they are not so easy to believe your comments and tell you so as they are very smart. You better accept other opinions and stop thinking those are "insulting comments". But again...Show me prove gobalchick that you have been insulted and I'm happy to deal with it.

The Elgin marbles were not George's cause célèbre--they were Amal's.  I would bet he never even knew what they were until she discussed them and he saw they kinda/sorta  fit some of the same themes as Monuments Men.  Same with the Yulia t-shirt.  She was influencing george, not the other way around.

Nicky you once sent me a private mail telling the old posters were just a bunch of old ladies ... . You complete it.  And that was pretty insulting for the old bats around here! 

fava wrote:The Elgin marbles were not George's cause célèbre--they were Amal's.  I would bet he never even knew what they were until she discussed them and he saw they kinda/sorta  fit some of the same themes as Monuments Men.  Same with the Yulia t-shirt.  She was influencing george, not the other way around.

I think you are mistaken. When George was promoting Monuments Men in London - the movie about the stolen treasures - he was asked at the press conference about the Elgin marbles. George has said that after he was asked that question he then went home and read about them and researched them and formed the view that they should be returned. So it had nothing to do with Amal. That's what I recall reading somewhere anyway. I don't care enough to look it up again. But it had nothing to do with Amal. Her cause celebre seemed to have been defending terrorists/war criminals etc. But there will be no more of those cases now that George is in charge of what legal work she does. LOL 

Atalante wrote:Nicky you once sent me a private mail telling the old posters were just a bunch of old ladies ... . You complete it.  And that was pretty insulting for the old bats around here! 

Atalante you just proved what a great liar you are.


I sent you one a private message as you offended with your post another poster. That was on the 30 April 2014. This message were seen by other mods and Katiedot. And those Messages are still saved. And your Response was "I don't care" and that is also still on record. Remember? You are a liar and you better stop you Show other Posters what a Person you are. You are not hurting me you are hurting only yourself.

I don't think so. I'm just exposing some of you. This isn't a forum at all. 

You don't expose anyone. You just showed your real you. But I think this is no surprise for us all. But I must say, it surprised me that you don't hesitate to lie just to say something bad about others.

Well I still got your mail and I will sent it to everyone who wants to read it. Voilà. Some of you ... I mean really !  Get a shrink !

Don't worry, I got the email too. But I just wonder, i told you to stop insulting other posters. Did you just tell me/us to get a shrink? You really can't stop to insult others can you? I ban you now for 2 days and anything further will be discussed with the other mods and Katiedot. Maybe that will help you to think about how to talk to others.

Just for those who can't be bothered with the facts but nevertheless have an opinion, maybe this will help:

Doughty Street Chambers were asked by the Greek Government in 2011 to take in the case of the return of the Elgin Marbles to Greece.

It was to the advantage of the Greek government that those who had been assigned to the case included Amal Clooney. A massive bonus in terms of timing and PR for their cause.

So to say that George at the Monuments Men premieres in Berlin and London in February knew absolutely nothing about the case is probably stretching a bit. He maybe didn't know enough to be an authority so maybe he did go home and 'read up about it' having said in the first place that 'it would be a nice thing to do' (possible paraphrase) to the lady from the Greek Reporter

globalchick wrote:

fava wrote:The Elgin marbles were not George's cause célèbre--they were Amal's.  I would bet he never even knew what they were until she discussed them and he saw they kinda/sorta  fit some of the same themes as Monuments Men.  Same with the Yulia t-shirt.  She was influencing george, not the other way around.

I think you are mistaken. When George was promoting Monuments Men in London - the movie about the stolen treasures - he was asked at the press conference about the Elgin marbles. George has said that after he was asked that question he then went home and read about them and researched them and formed the view that they should be returned. So it had nothing to do with Amal. That's what I recall reading somewhere anyway. I don't care enough to look it up again. But it had nothing to do with Amal. Her cause celebre seemed to have been defending terrorists/war criminals etc. But there will be no more of those cases now that George is in charge of what legal work she does. LOL 

Yeah, the research probably involved consulting his local international law attorney.

snort

As to the double standard comments above.

No, no double standard.  You start calling other posters names you get warned.

You keep it up, you get banned temporarily.

You come back and do the same, you get banned permanently.

If you post a comment that is not backed up with a link to either a news story or someone else commentary then your comment is merely opinion. 

If you make statements as fact and expect other forum members to accept your opinion as fact and then complain when they don't then you'll just be reminded that your opinion is just that.  If other posters see your opinions as bullshit they are welcome to say so.

I don't know how much clearer that can be.

If you keep posting the same opinion in thread, after thread, after thread, you will be reminded to refrain from doing so and if possible, your comment will be moved to the appropriate thread.

I can tell you though that we the mods and Katie find that very tedious to do so please stick to the subject of the thread as much as possible.

I know we all go off on tangents, but there are some posters here whose comments ALWAYS go back to their dislike of Amal, no matter what thread they are in, that's what we're trying to avoid so that not every fucking thread becomes about Amal.

There are plenty of threads about her like this one - stick to those please!

Gosh, things are getting ugly around here.

Not ugly just trying to keep it from becoming a free for all.

Forum rules haven't changed just newer posters who want to ignore them.

We've banned people before.  Nothing new there either.

Read the rules.

Follow them or leave your choice.  No one gets paid to be here and comment and no one gets paid to mod.

Freedom of speech doesn't include abusing other posters.  If that's a person's intent we remind them of the rules.  They keep it up they get banned.

Folks this is a FORUM about a celebrity.  It's not fucking rocket science and it's not anyone's job.

It can be fun, it can be boring and it can get nasty - it depends on the posters.

The mods are here to keep the nasty down when possible but we're human too so we also get pissed off too. 

Nothing new in that either.

I'd rather be an 'old bag' than a 'sad sack' Grow Up.

Thanks Nicky80 for the press statement. It does sound promising, especially if the President is considering pardoning Fahmy which would even be a better outcome for him.

In the Canadian Press a couple of hours ago

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Amal Clooney among lawyers calling for Egyptian-Canadian journalist's release


CAIRO, Egypt -- The lawyers of an imprisoned Egyptian-Canadian Al-Jazeera journalist called Monday for his release, saying he should benefit from a recently passed law that allows the country's president to deport foreign defendants, or be freed for health reasons.
Amal Clooney and Mark Wassouf of British firm Doughty Street Chambers said in a statement that Mohammed Fahmy is in prison for over 300 days on the basis of a "fundamentally unfair" trial.
Fahmy, Australian Peter Greste, and Egyptian Baher Mohammed were charged with helping the Muslim Brotherhood, a group Egypt's government has declared a terrorist organization. Fahmy and Greste were sentenced in June to seven years and Mohammed to ten in a trial described as a sham.
In a sign that the case, which has caused an international outcry, may be coming to a close, President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi said last week that he is examining ways to resolve the matter.
El-Sissi was responding to a question about whether he considered issuing a pardon for the defendants or deporting the foreign defendants in the case.
The law passed this month was seen as providing a potential legal instrument with which to free the journalists.
The attorneys welcomed el-Sissi's statement. They said a pardon would be in line with a regional reconciliation agreement reached this month that sought to end tension between Qatar, Egypt and other Gulf countries over Doha's support for Islamist groups, including the Brotherhood.
The attorneys called on Al-Jazeera and Qatar to respect the agreement, "which requires that parties should not foment hatred between groups but rather work openly and co-operatively with each other in a spirit of reconciliation."
The lawyers also called on the country's chief prosecutor to release Fahmy, who suffers from Hepatitis C and an injured shoulder, because the ailments require urgent treatment.
The Al-Jazeera journalists' arrest last December was part of a broad crackdown against Islamists in which hundreds have been killed and thousands arrested. The journalists say they are being prosecuted simply for doing their job.
Fahmy, who covered stories for the New York Times and CNN before working for Al-Jazeera, was the most outspoken over the course of the trial.
His family, who moved to Canada in 1991, has called the charges against the three journalists "ridiculous."
Canadian officials have told Fahmy's family that the journalist's dual citizenship has placed limits on how much they can do.
The trio appealed their sentences and a court has set an appeals hearing for Jan. 1, 2015.
With files from The Canadian Press

Could be a very interesting coversation in the Clooney household tonight

Ben Emmerson QC has spoken:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Sassounian: Amal Clooney to Represent Armenia in European Court

Here is a surprising news item being disclosed for the first time in this column—Amal Ramzi Alamuddin, wife of prominent actor and human rights activist George Clooney, will be one of the attorneys representing Armenia next month at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

Mrs. Clooney is a highly regarded attorney specializing in international law, criminal law, human rights, and extradition. She has been involved in several major lawsuits such as return of the Elgin Marbles from Great Britain to Greece, and defending Julian Assange of WikiLeaks and former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. She has also worked with the Prosecutor of the UN Special Tribunal for Lebanon, and the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia.

Amal was born in Lebanon to a Druze father and Sunni Muslim mother in 1978. At the age of two, her family moved to the United Kingdom. She received her law degree from New York University School of Law and clerked at the International Court of Justice (World Court). After returning to London in 2010, she became a barrister at the Doughty Street Chambers. She served as advisor to Kofi Annan, UN Special Envoy on Syria, and as Counsel to the 2013 UN Drone Inquiry team. She is fluent in English, French and Arabic. Her marriage to George Clooney in September 2014 made worldwide headlines.

With such impeccable credentials, Mrs. Clooney will be a great asset to Armenia’s legal team in Strasbourg, in the appeal of Perincek vs. Switzerland before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights on January 28.

The case involves the conviction by Swiss courts of Dogu Perincek, a minor Turkish political party leader, who had travelled to Switzerland in 2005 with the explicit intent of denying the truth of the Armenian Genocide. In 2008, Perincek appealed the Swiss ruling to the European Court of Human Rights. A majority of five out of seven ECHR judges ruled on Dec. 17, 2013 that Switzerland had violated Perincek’s right to free expression.

This ruling was an unfair and unacceptable double standard, as the court considered denial of the Jewish Holocaust a crime, but Armenian Genocide denial an infringement on free speech. The five judges who ruled against Switzerland made countless judgmental and factual errors, misrepresenting Perincek’s allegations, misinterpreting Switzerland’s laws and court rulings, lacking basic knowledge of the Armenian Genocide, and repeatedly contradicting themselves. Two of the seven judges disagreed with the majority’s ruling and submitted a comprehensive 19-page report on the Armenian Genocide, siding with the Swiss court.

On March 17, 2014, Switzerland decided to appeal the ruling to ECHR’s 17-judge Grand Chamber, to defend the integrity of its laws and the country’s legal system. Specifically, the Swiss government challenged the court’s decision on three grounds:

1) ECHR had never before dealt with the juridical qualification of genocide and the scope of freedom of expression;
2) The undue restriction of “the margin of appreciation” available to Switzerland under ECHR’s jurisprudence;
3) The establishment of ‘artificial distinctions’ — in the absence of an international verdict, ECHR should have considered the Turkish Court’s 1919 guilty verdicts against the masterminds of the Armenian Genocide as evidence related to World Court’s jurisprudence.

Last year, when ECHR’s lower court was considering Perincek’s case, Armenia did not participate. Turkey, however, intervened by submitting extensive documentation questioning the veracity of the Armenian Genocide. This time around Armenia will take part with a strong legal team, which includes Geoffrey Robertson QC, a preeminent international lawyer and author of the remarkable book, “An Inconvenient Genocide: Who Now Remembers the Armenians?” Robertson will be joined in court by his associate Amal Clooney, and two Armenian government representatives Gevorg Kostanyan and Emil Babayan.
It is imperative that on the eve of the Armenian Genocide’s Centennial in 2015, ECHR’s Grand Chamber reverse the lower court’s flawed ruling, restoring the integrity of Swiss laws and preventing Turkey and Perincek from exporting their genocide denialism to Europe and beyond!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Explains George's interest and possible trip.

Interesting that it involves free speech issues.  In the U.S. "holocaust denying" is not illegal --even though reprehensible.

So, what is it that Armenia needs representation for? To present the case for the veracity of the genocide? That's not the point of the case. It's a free speech issue, right? And it's not even their jurisdiction; a Turkish defendant in a Swiss court. I'm missing something.

My reading is:  Switzerland considers denying the Nazi Holocaust a crime.  The Armenians think their genocide should be treated the same. I guess from their perspective, the Swiss judiciary is also denying their history, abetted by the Turkish government (which presented documentation questioning the genocide).  Armenia must feel they should have partipated and presented their own evidence in the last court case and now is their chance.

Yeah, that makes sense. But it seems like the kind of thing for which an interested party submits a brief to the court, not necessarily becoming a part of the proceedings. And Armenia has its own lawyers, so...

I guess international law has different protocols.

Seems like Armenia neglected to submit such a brief in the Swiss court (if that is even allowed there).  It is not usual even in the US for different lawyers with expertise to take the case on the appellate level and this is an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.  If you have a case in the US and it goes to the Supreme Court, there are lawyers out there whose expertise is such cases and you may have a better chance if you use them --or at least consult them --than the lawyer who may have represented you all along.

Yep. Again, makes sense. Not particularly efficient or professionally flattering for Armenia, but it does make sense.

HuffPost three hours ago:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]



Amal Clooney to Represent Armenia in European Court

Here is a surprising news item being disclosed in this column -- Amal Ramzi Alamuddin, wife of prominent actor and human rights activist George Clooney, will be one of the attorneys representing Armenia next month at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

Some readers may wonder how a woman described by Elle magazine as having "stunning looks, flirty dresses, tailored pants, colorful heels, and gorgeous hair" is involved in such a complex legal matter?

It may be astonishing to most people that Amal Alamuddin, now Mrs. Clooney, is much more than a pretty face! In fact, she is perfectly qualified for this critical assignment.

Mrs. Clooney is a highly regarded attorney specializing in international law, criminal law, human rights, and extradition. She has been involved in several major lawsuits, such as return of the Elgin Marbles from Great Britain to Greece, and defending Julian Assange of WikiLeaks and former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. She has also worked with the Prosecutor of the UN Special Tribunal for Lebanon, and the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia.

Amal was born in Lebanon to a Druze father and Sunni Muslim mother in 1978. At the age of two, her family moved to the United Kingdom. She received her law degree from New York University School of Law and clerked at the International Court of Justice (World Court). After returning to London in 2010, she became a barrister at the Doughty Street Chambers. She served as advisor to Kofi Annan, UN Special Envoy on Syria, and as Counsel to the 2013 UN Drone Inquiry team. She is fluent in English, French and Arabic. Her marriage to George Clooney in September 2014 made worldwide headlines.

With such impeccable credentials, Mrs. Clooney will be a great asset to Armenia's legal team in Strasbourg, in the appeal of Perincek vs. Switzerland before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights on January 28.

The case involves the conviction by Swiss courts of Dogu Perincek, a minor Turkish political party leader, who had travelled to Switzerland in 2005 with the explicit intent of denying the truth of the Armenian Genocide. In 2008, Perincek appealed the Swiss ruling to the European Court of Human Rights. A majority of five out of seven ECHR judges ruled on Dec. 17, 2013 that Switzerland had violated Perincek's right to free expression.

This ruling was an unfair and unacceptable double standard, as the court considered denial of the Jewish Holocaust a crime, but Armenian Genocide denial an infringement on free speech. The five judges who ruled against Switzerland made countless judgmental and factual errors, misrepresenting Perincek's allegations, misinterpreting Switzerland's laws and court rulings, lacking basic knowledge of the Armenian Genocide, and repeatedly contradicting themselves. Two of the seven judges disagreed with the majority's ruling and submitted a comprehensive 19-page report on the Armenian Genocide, siding with the Swiss court.

On March 17, 2014, Switzerland decided to appeal the ruling to ECHR's 17-judge Grand Chamber, to defend the integrity of its laws and the country's legal system. Specifically, the Swiss government challenged the court's decision on three grounds:

1) ECHR had never before dealt with the juridical qualification of genocide and the scope of freedom of expression;
2) The undue restriction of "the margin of appreciation" available to Switzerland under ECHR's jurisprudence;
3) The establishment of 'artificial distinctions' -- in the absence of an international verdict, ECHR should have considered the Turkish Court's 1919 guilty verdicts against the masterminds of the Armenian Genocide as evidence related to World Court's jurisprudence.

Last year, when ECHR's lower court was considering Perincek's case, Armenia did not participate. Turkey, however, intervened by submitting extensive documentation questioning the veracity of the Armenian Genocide. This time around Armenia will take part with a strong legal team, which includes Geoffrey Robertson QC, a preeminent international lawyer and author of the remarkable book, An Inconvenient Genocide: Who Now Remembers the Armenians? Robertson will be joined in court by his associate Amal Clooney, and two Armenian government representatives Gevorg Kostanyan and Emil Babayan.

It is imperative that on the eve of the Armenian Genocide's Centennial in 2015, ECHR's Grand Chamber reverse the lower court's flawed ruling, restoring the integrity of Swiss laws and preventing Turkey and Perincek from exporting their genocide denialism to Europe and beyond!

This morning:


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]



Retrial in Egypt al-Jazeera Greste, Fahmy and Mohamed case

Egypt's top court has ordered a retrial of three al-Jazeera journalists jailed on charges of spreading false news.

The decision was made after the hearing in Cairo of an appeal by the three, Peter Greste, Mohamed Fahmy and Baher Mohamed, against their conviction.

Prosecutors acknowledged major problems with the verdict, defence lawyers said. A new trial will occur within a month but the trio must stay in custody.

Al-Jazeera called on the authorities to release its journalists quickly.

The journalists deny the charges, which included collaborating with the banned Muslim Brotherhood after the overthrow of President Mohammed Morsi by the military in 2013.

They say they were simply reporting the news.

Two of them are foreign nationals - Peter Greste, a former BBC correspondent, is Australian, and his producer colleague Mohammed Fahmy holds Egyptian and Canadian citizenship.

The three journalists have now spent a year in jail since they were first arrested in December 2013.

They were convicted in June - with Fahmy and Greste jailed for seven years and Mohamed for 10 years.

Judges have ruled that they should remain in custody until the new trial.

At the scene: Orla Guerin, BBC News, Cairo
The fate of the journalists, who have spent more than a year in a high security prison complex, was decided in a matter of minutes.

The media never made it inside the courtroom for the brief hearing. By the time the police let reporters into the courthouse the judge had concluded the hearing.

Defence lawyers and relatives waited for the verdict in a packed corridor. When it came Peter Greste's elderly parents, Lois and Yuris, looked stunned. Just minutes earlier Mohammed Fahmy's lawyer, Negad Al Borai, had been confidently predicting that all three defendants would be released on bail.

Outside court relatives warned that trio could face another lengthy battle, with a retrial lasting as long as a year.

Marwa Omara, fiancee of Mohamed Fahmy, said he would continue his fight for justice and for freedom of the press. Wiping away a tear, she said she and Mohammed would go ahead with their plans to marry - if necessary behind bars.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
'Hoped for more'
Thursday's court session began at 09:00 local time (07:00 GMT) and lasted just 30 minutes. None of the defendants were present.

An Al-Jazeera spokesman said in a statement after the decision: "Baher, Peter and Mohammed have been unjustly in jail for over a year now.

"The Egyptian authorities have a simple choice - free these men quickly, or continue to string this out, all the while continuing this injustice and harming the image of their own country in the eyes of the world. They should choose the former."

Reacting to the hearing, Greste's mother Lois said: "We need some time to process. It's not as positive as we had hoped."

Fahmy's brother Adel said he had "hoped for more" - that his brother would be freed, at least on bail.

But Greste's lawyer Chris Flynn described the decision as being "a positive result".

"It's not the complete vindication that we were hoping for of course," he told the BBC.

"It does, however, recognise... that the original trial processes contain some flaws... and we think overall provides an opportunity for the president to consider perhaps some other measures such as deportation without any further judicial action in Egypt.

"We trust and hope that that will be the approach that's taken."

Key dates

• 29 December 2013: Peter Greste, Bader Mohamed and Mohammed Fadel Fahmy arrested
  
• February 2014: Put on trial in Cairo on terrorism-related offences
  
• 23 June: Convicted and jailed for seven to 10 years
  
• 23 December: Al-Jazeera suspends its Egyptian channel
  
• 1 January 2015: Retrial ordered after "major problems" found in verdict
  

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
The BBC's Orla Guerin in Cairo says that the case has been hugely damaging for Egypt, and there have been indications that the authorities want to bring it to a close.
A recent thaw in relations between Egypt and Qatar - which owns the Al Jazeera channel - heightened expectations that the case would be resolved, our correspondent says.
But today's verdict means the journalists will remain behind bars at least until the first hearing of their new trial - which is expected to take place within a month. Lawyers say they will then apply for bail.
In December al-Jazeera decided to suspend its Egyptian channel, Mubasher Misr (Live Egypt), whose coverage had become a major source of tension between the two countries.
Analysts speculated that the channel's suspension might ease the way for Egypt to free the two foreign journalists in line with a recently-approved law that allows foreign citizens to be deported rather than jailed.
President Sisi has said in the past he wished the journalists had been deported rather than being put on trial.

Mohammed Fahmy's fiancee talking about her hopes and Fahmy's lawyer's progress and advice to her last week (Amal)

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]