REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

WAR CRIMES

POSTED BY: HOWARD
UPDATED: Saturday, November 5, 2005 08:27
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 819
PAGE 1 of 1

Sunday, October 30, 2005 4:58 PM

HOWARD


October 28, 2005

The Epic Crime That Dares Not Speak Its Name

By John Pilger

An RAF officer is about to be tried before a military court for refusing to return to Iraq because the war is illegal. Malcolm Kendall-Smith is the first British officer to face criminal charges for challenging the legality of the invasion and occupation. He is not a conscientious objector; he has completed two tours in Iraq. When he came home the last time, he studied the reasons given for attacking Iraq and concluded he was breaking the law. His position is supported by international lawyers all over the world, not least by Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general, who said in September last year: "The US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN Charter."

The question of legality deeply concerns the British military brass, who sought Tony Blair's assurance on the eve of the invasion, got it and, as they now know, were lied to. They are right to worry; Britain is a signatory to the treaty that set up the International Criminal Court, which draws its codes from the Geneva Conventions and the 1945 Nuremberg Charter. The latter is clear: "To initiate a war of aggression . . . is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

At the Nuremberg trial of the Nazi leadership, counts one and two, "Conspiracy to wage aggressive war and waging aggressive war", refer to "the common plan or conspiracy". These are defined in the indictment as "the planning, preparation, initiation and waging of wars of aggression, which were also wars in violation of international treaties, agreements and assurances". A wealth of evidence is now available that George Bush, Blair and their advisers did just that. The leaked minutes from the infamous Downing Street meeting in July 2002 alone reveal that Blair and his war cabinet knew that it was illegal. The attack that followed, mounted against a defenceless country offering no threat to the US or Britain, has a precedent in Hitler's invasion of Sudetenland; the lies told to justify both are eerily similar.

The similarity is also striking in the illegal bombing campaign that preceded both. Unknown to most people in Britain and America, British and US planes conducted a ferocious bombing campaign against Iraq in the ten months prior to the invasion, hoping this would provoke Saddam Hussein into supplying an excuse for an invasion. It failed and killed an unknown number of civilians.

At Nuremberg, counts three and four referred to "War crimes and crimes against humanity". Here again, there is overwhelming evidence that Blair and Bush committed "violations of the laws or customs of war" including "murder . . . of civilian populations of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war". Two recent examples: the US onslaught near Ramadi this month in which 39 men, women and children - all civilians - were killed, and a report by the United Nations special rapporteur in Iraq who described the Anglo-American practice of denying food and water to Iraqi civilians in order to force them to leave their towns and villages as a "flagrant violation" of the Geneva Conventions.

In September, Human Rights Watch released an epic study that documents the systematic nature of torture by the Americans, and how casual it is, even enjoyable.

This is a sergeant from the US Army's 82nd Airborne Division: "On their day off people would show up all the time. Everyone in camp knew if you wanted to work out your frustration you show up at the PUC [prisoners'] tent. In a way it was sport . . . One day a sergeant shows up and tells a PUC to grab a pole. He told him to bend over and broke the guy's leg with a mini Louisville Slugger that was a metal [baseball] bat. He was the fucking cook!"

The report describes how the people of Fallujah, the scene of numerous American atrocities, regard the 82nd Airborne as "the Murdering Maniacs". Reading it, you realise that the occupying force in Iraq is, as the head of Reuters said recently, out of control. It is destroying lives in industrial quantities when compared with the violence of the resistance.

Who will be punished for this? According to Sir Michael Jay, the permanent under-secretary of state who gave evidence before the Foreign Affairs Committee on 24 June 2003, "Iraq was on the agenda of each cabinet meeting in the nine months or so until the conflict broke out in April". How is it possible that in 20 or more cabinet meetings, ministers did not learn about Blair's conspiracy with Bush? Or, if they did, how is it possible they were so comprehensively deceived?

Charles Clarke's position is important because, as the current Home Secretary, he has proposed a series of totalitarian measures that emasculate habeas corpus, which is the barrier between a democracy and a police state. Clarke's proposals pointedly ignore state terrorism and state crime and, by clear implication, say they require no accountability. Great crimes, such as invasion and its horrors, can proceed with impunity. This is lawlessness on a vast scale. Are the people of Britain going to allow this, and those responsible to escape justice? Flight Lieutenant Kendall-Smith speaks for the rule of law and humanity and deserves our support.

New Statesman (London) | www.newstatesman.co.uk Monday, October 31, 2005



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 4, 2005 3:46 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Actually, the war is NOT criminal, as it follows exactly what U.N. Resolutions specify. Want to blame anyone, blame the U.N.

Quote:
Resolution 678, you see, is specifically incorporated into both Resolutions 687 and 1441 by reference. Resolution 678 was passed in 1990, after Saddam invaded Kuwait. This resolution told Saddam to get the hell out, and authorized "Member States ... to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."
(Resolution 660 merely demanded that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait. Iraq didn't. George H.W. Bush made him.) So ... even if you went to a government school; hell, even if you vote for Democrats you can see that under Resolution 678 the United States, a Member State of the United Nations, has the authority under that resolution, and under 687 and 1441 to kick Saddam to the curb.



Thus endeth all claims that the United States violated international law by invading Iraq. We weren't violating international law, we were enforcing it.



" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 4, 2005 4:32 AM

DREAMTROVE


No it doesn't. It just says we had the right to kick him out of Kuwait.

Personally, I don't pull the international law defense here though. I don't think this was the problem.

I'm not a lefty Saddam apologist. I think we should've kicked him out of there. The way in which Bush chose to do that was irreparably damaging to the US image and our national interests. That's why I have a problem with it.

The problem was that Bush Admin, like Clinton Admin before him, If they could really be called different since many of them were the same people, wanted Saddam Hussein gone from Iraq because they wanted to own it, so they could siphon off oil as a bennie for their friends, and because their supporters, PNAC, "needed" it as a cornerstone to global social revolution, which is again not a theory, but something these people wrote about at length long before they were PNAC.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 4, 2005 8:00 AM

CITIZEN


I happen to think we shouldn't of gone into Iraq.

I also think that the court should try the RAF officer, if the court is fair, he'll be found not guilty.


More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 4, 2005 11:08 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
No it doesn't. It just says we had the right to kick him out of Kuwait.

Personally, I don't pull the international law defense here though. I don't think this was the problem.

I'm not a lefty Saddam apologist. I think we should've kicked him out of there. The way in which Bush chose to do that was irreparably damaging to the US image and our national interests. That's why I have a problem with it.

The problem was that Bush Admin, like Clinton Admin before him, If they could really be called different since many of them were the same people, wanted Saddam Hussein gone from Iraq because they wanted to own it, so they could siphon off oil as a bennie for their friends, and because their supporters, PNAC, "needed" it as a cornerstone to global social revolution, which is again not a theory, but something these people wrote about at length long before they were PNAC.



Nope, sorry. If one actaully reads the resolutions (and yes, they can be tedious ) , it makes mention of more than merely kicking Saddam OUT of Kuwait. That's the great misconception that most folks have, and the running debate which has been going on ever since the 1st Gulf War. Many ridiculed Bush 41 for following the letter of the UN Resolutions too closely, while Bush 43 is accused of forcing the issue to suit his own needs.

This isn't a exact science. Things change over time, as well as people's opinions, and the reasons for their opinions.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 4, 2005 4:27 PM

DREAMTROVE


Auraptor,

It's just not an exact science, international law can barely be said to exist at all. But that's why I was more US focused. To me, it's very gut thing. Whether or not one accepts that this was a "steal the oil" nazi-esque blind imperialist invasion, one must accept that the rest of the world most definitely without a doubt overwhelmingly sees it this way. There's at least an 80:20 global feeling against the US invasion of Iraq, and in the muslim world that's 98:2.

The main problem this presents for us is that it makes US objectives in the rest of the world more difficult to achieve, but also this IS the international arena.

If there is an international law, than the nations, representing their people, would have a problem with that.

Take an example you are familiar with. When Clinton decided to go into Waco and kill 84 or so Texans, Texas was none to happy with it. Neither was I up in NY.

Bush Sr. went in just to defend Kuwait, and even so, before he did, he made sure he got a worldwide consensus that it was the right thing to do. This isnt about letting france veto your foreign policy, it's about convincing france. If your foreign policy is kind of nazi, well then france maybe oughtta have that veto. If you can't get the support of the world, then they're essential going to charge, try, and convict you whether you agree with it or not.

Once done, as it has been done now, there's not much you can do about it. Bush has broken international law in the eyes of the international community, and that is really all that matters. Whether Bush and his supporters disagree is actually completely irrelevant.

And it's not like if you're in black panther, PA and you bump into a black guy and some policeman decides it's a hate crime, and you get charged and sent to the Honorable JD Farrakhan. Then you go over his head, go to the state of pennsylvania and go to the books and Mr. Farrakhan is likely to agree with you, and if he doesn't, you appeal. And yeah I know, this is just the sort of example that got Mr. Bennet into so much trouble, but I can't think of anything better on the spur of the moment. So no offense was intended here to Mr. Farrakhan, the Black Panthers, or anyone else.

But not so in the international community. There is no over their heads, and there is no appeal, there is no book, and that which is written is not universally accepted and is completely uniforcable. The only more or less universally accepted piece of international law is the Geneva Convention, which we're already in violation of.

And also, 1441 doesn't count. Maybe it counts to you, but it certainly doesn't count to them, because it was based primarily on false information backed up by forged documents. Don't argue with me, argue with them, because they most sincerely believe this. I believe it too, but my belief of it is irrelevant as well.

Finally, what can they do about it? Well, legally nothing, but then can make life hard for us in terms of US objectives.

If directly after the conflict in Kuwait, Bush Sr. had obtained conclusive evidence that Iran was planning an immediate nuclear attack on the US, pending the July completion of a nuclear device, he would have gotten France to sign up for an invasion. If the same scenario were to unravel today, and Bush were to present it to the UN, Bush would have a hard time getting Slovakia to send troops.

This is the way in which it damages us.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 4, 2005 4:28 PM

DREAMTROVE


Auraptor,

It's just not an exact science, international law can barely be said to exist at all. But that's why I was more US focused. To me, it's very gut thing. Whether or not one accepts that this was a "steal the oil" nazi-esque blind imperialist invasion, one must accept that the rest of the world most definitely without a doubt overwhelmingly sees it this way. There's at least an 80:20 global feeling against the US invasion of Iraq, and in the muslim world that's 98:2.

The main problem this presents for us is that it makes US objectives in the rest of the world more difficult to achieve, but also this IS the international arena.

If there is an international law, than the nations, representing their people, would have a problem with that.

Take an example you are familiar with. When Clinton decided to go into Waco and kill 84 or so Texans, Texas was none to happy with it. Neither was I up in NY.

Bush Sr. went in just to defend Kuwait, and even so, before he did, he made sure he got a worldwide consensus that it was the right thing to do. This isnt about letting france veto your foreign policy, it's about convincing france. If your foreign policy is kind of nazi, well then france maybe oughtta have that veto. If you can't get the support of the world, then they're essential going to charge, try, and convict you whether you agree with it or not.

Once done, as it has been done now, there's not much you can do about it. Bush has broken international law in the eyes of the international community, and that is really all that matters. Whether Bush and his supporters disagree is actually completely irrelevant.

And it's not like if you're in black panther, PA and you bump into a black guy and some policeman decides it's a hate crime, and you get charged and sent to the Honorable JD Farrakhan. Then you go over his head, go to the state of pennsylvania and go to the books and Mr. Farrakhan is likely to agree with you, and if he doesn't, you appeal. And yeah I know, this is just the sort of example that got Mr. Bennet into so much trouble, but I can't think of anything better on the spur of the moment. So no offense was intended here to Mr. Farrakhan, the Black Panthers, or anyone else.

But not so in the international community. There is no over their heads, and there is no appeal, there is no book, and that which is written is not universally accepted and is completely uniforcable. The only more or less universally accepted piece of international law is the Geneva Convention, which we're already in violation of.

And also, 1441 doesn't count. Maybe it counts to you, but it certainly doesn't count to them, because it was based primarily on false information backed up by forged documents. Don't argue with me, argue with them, because they most sincerely believe this. I believe it too, but my belief of it is irrelevant as well.

Finally, what can they do about it? Well, legally nothing, but then can make life hard for us in terms of US objectives.

If directly after the conflict in Kuwait, Bush Sr. had obtained conclusive evidence that Iran was planning an immediate nuclear attack on the US, pending the July completion of a nuclear device, he would have gotten France to sign up for an invasion. If the same scenario were to unravel today, and Bush were to present it to the UN, Bush would have a hard time getting Slovakia to send troops.

This is the way in which it damages us.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 4, 2005 4:38 PM

DREAMTROVE


Auraptor,

It's just not an exact science, international law can barely be said to exist at all. But that's why I was more US focused. To me, it's very gut thing. Whether or not one accepts that this was a "steal the oil" nazi-esque blind imperialist invasion, one must accept that the rest of the world most definitely without a doubt overwhelmingly sees it this way. There's at least an 80:20 global feeling against the US invasion of Iraq, and in the muslim world that's 98:2.

The main problem this presents for us is that it makes US objectives in the rest of the world more difficult to achieve, but also this IS the international arena.

If there is an international law, than the nations, representing their people, would have a problem with that.

Take an example you are familiar with. When Clinton decided to go into Waco and kill 84 or so Texans, Texas was none to happy with it. Neither was I up in NY.

Bush Sr. went in just to defend Kuwait, and even so, before he did, he made sure he got a worldwide consensus that it was the right thing to do. This isnt about letting france veto your foreign policy, it's about convincing france. If your foreign policy is kind of nazi, well then france maybe oughtta have that veto. If you can't get the support of the world, then they're essential going to charge, try, and convict you whether you agree with it or not.

Once done, as it has been done now, there's not much you can do about it. Bush has broken international law in the eyes of the international community, and that is really all that matters. Whether Bush and his supporters disagree is actually completely irrelevant.

And it's not like if you're in black panther, PA and you bump into a black guy and some policeman decides it's a hate crime, and you get charged and sent to the Honorable JD Farrakhan. Then you go over his head, go to the state of pennsylvania and go to the books and Mr. Farrakhan is likely to agree with you, and if he doesn't, you appeal. And yeah I know, this is just the sort of example that got Mr. Bennet into so much trouble, but I can't think of anything better on the spur of the moment. So no offense was intended here to Mr. Farrakhan, the Black Panthers, or anyone else.

But not so in the international community. There is no over their heads, and there is no appeal, there is no book, and that which is written is not universally accepted and is completely uniforcable. The only more or less universally accepted piece of international law is the Geneva Convention, which we're already in violation of.

And also, 1441 doesn't count. Maybe it counts to you, but it certainly doesn't count to them, because it was based primarily on false information backed up by forged documents. Don't argue with me, argue with them, because they most sincerely believe this. I believe it too, but my belief of it is irrelevant as well.

Finally, what can they do about it? Well, legally nothing, but then can make life hard for us in terms of US objectives.

If directly after the conflict in Kuwait, Bush Sr. had obtained conclusive evidence that Iran was planning an immediate nuclear attack on the US, pending the July completion of a nuclear device, he would have gotten France to sign up for an invasion. If the same scenario were to unravel today, and Bush were to present it to the UN, Bush would have a hard time getting Slovakia to send troops.

This is the way in which it damages us.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 4, 2005 4:43 PM

DREAMTROVE


Not with a bang but with a whimper.
Not with a bang but with a whimper.
Not with a bang but with a whimper.

lol, my browser froze up when I hit submit last time. I guess it got the message :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 4, 2005 6:27 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Not with a bang but with a whimper.
Not with a bang but with a whimper.
Not with a bang but with a whimper.

lol, my browser froze up when I hit submit last time. I guess it got the message :)


Message got. And one still could make use of the 'edit' button.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 5, 2005 8:27 AM

DREAMTROVE


Oh edit, thanks. Didn't think of that.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Elections; 2024
Wed, December 4, 2024 13:42 - 4886 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Wed, December 4, 2024 13:16 - 4813 posts
Is Elon Musk Nuts?
Wed, December 4, 2024 12:37 - 427 posts
Pardon all J6 Political Prisoners on Day One
Wed, December 4, 2024 12:31 - 7 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Wed, December 4, 2024 07:25 - 7538 posts
My Smartphone Was Ruining My Life. So I Quit. And you can, too.
Wed, December 4, 2024 06:10 - 3 posts
Thread of Trump Appointments / Other Changes of Scenery...
Tue, December 3, 2024 23:31 - 54 posts
Vox: Are progressive groups sinking Democrats' electoral chances?
Tue, December 3, 2024 21:37 - 1 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Tue, December 3, 2024 20:35 - 962 posts
Trump is a moron
Tue, December 3, 2024 20:16 - 13 posts
A thread for Democrats Only
Tue, December 3, 2024 11:39 - 6941 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Mon, December 2, 2024 21:22 - 302 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL