PDA

View Full Version : Is the US about to commit a war crime?


keyloid
03-12-2003, 12:17 PM
From Salon.com:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/scheer/2003/03/12/war_crimes/index.html
Preemptive war crimes
Driven by a coterie of neoconservative ideologues -- and the accidental president in their sway -- we are hours away from becoming international outlaws.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Robert Scheer

March 12, 2003 |

The maiming or killing of a single Iraqi civilian in an attack by the United States would constitute a war crime, as well as a profound violation of the Christian notion of just war. That is because the recent report of the U.N. inspectors has made indelibly clear that disarmament is working and that Iraq at this time poses no direct threat to the well-being of the American people.

Of course, we are not talking about one or two casualties. In seriously considering such war strategies as bringing a city-destroying firestorm down upon a population half made up of children, the United States is planning to disarm a nation of its weapons of mass destruction by using weapons that cause mass destruction.

Brutal, preemptive and unilateral war under such circumstances is -- by the standards of any great civilization or religion -- morally indefensible and also seriously damages the reputation of free societies, the principles of which we are trying to market to the rest of the world.

To distract us from this essential truth, the president has shamefully frightened the American people, first with his baseless attempt to link Saddam Hussein to 9/11 and then with unproven claims that Iraq's government and weapons pose an immediate danger to Americans.

The real story is that U.N. inspectors are reporting substantial progress in terms of Iraqi cooperation and the destruction of weapons in Iraq.

George Bush and the 200,000-plus troops he has sent to the Persian Gulf could take some credit for this, but he continues to isolate the United States, as other leading nations request that the U.N. inspectors be given four more months to complete their work.

Why the unseemly rush to war when the chief U.N. weapons inspector stated, "One can hardly avoid the impression that, after a period of somewhat reluctant cooperation, there has been an acceleration of initiatives from the Iraqi side since the end of January"?

Hans Blix went on to cite increased air surveillance using U.S., French, German and Russian planes, the unfettered ability "to perform professional no-notice inspections all over Iraq," rising cooperation on private interviews with scientists, inspections of "mobile units," destruction of 40 percent of the Al-Samoud 2 missile cache, and excavation and analysis of a major weapons disposal site.

Most important, Blix noted that for the United Nations to finish its survey of sites, documents and relevant people, it "will not take years, nor weeks, but months." In the meantime, he emphasized, "We are not watching the breaking of toothpicks. Lethal weapons are being destroyed."

And as for the most lethal of weapons -- the one that could end all life on this planet -- the news from Iraq is even more promising.

"After three months of intrusive inspections, we have, to date, found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq," the chief atomic weapons inspector told the U.N. Security Council on Friday.

After 218 inspections of 141 sites over three months by the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei charged that the United States had used faked and erroneous evidence to support the claims that Iraq was importing enriched uranium and other material for the manufacture of nuclear weapons.

So why, considering all this good news, is the White House afraid to allow the inspections to continue?

Is Bush worried that the weapons may not exist and that his real goal of taking over Iraq, stated blatantly in his last press conference, might be undermined? How else to explain the president's indifference to the fact that the evidence of weapons locations supplied by his own intelligence agencies has not checked out on the ground?

Terrifyingly, we are hours away from doing irreparable harm to our democratic heritage by launching a risky, arrogant crusade that most of the world opposes, all at the behest of a small coterie of neoconservative ideologues plotting to remake the world in their image and who unfortunately have the ear of our accidental president.

All this in the name of the victims of 9/11, an attack carried out by Muslim fanatics originally embraced and trained by the United States during the Cold War and whose proven ties have been with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, not to secular Iraq.

If we pursue this unjust war in the coming weeks, we can surely add the desecration of the victims' memory to the list of outrages we will perpetrate.

Effendi
03-12-2003, 12:24 PM
.
According to recent reports, the United States may be about to warn the U.N. inspectors and reporters to leave Iraq within three days. The purpose of this warning will be to protect the inspectors and reporters from harm when U.S. forces attack Iraq, perhaps late next week.

The situation provides an interesting opportunity for U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan. If the U.S. issues the expected warning, he can and should announce that the U.S. has no authority to evict the inspectors, who are United Nations employees. Furthermore, Annan can say that he will not withdraw the inspectors from Iraq unless he is ordered to do so by the U.N. Security Council or the inspectors report that they are not being allowed to do their job.

Any effort to get the Security Council to order the inspectors out under current circumstances would undoubtedly fail, and if by some miracle it did get the needed nine votes it would certainly be vetoed by France, Russia, or China.

Such an announcement by the Secretary General would have three very beneficial consequences. First, it is unlikely that President Bush and his advisors would proceed with an attack, which would be a public relations nightmare as long as the inspectors are still in Iraq.

Second, the announcement would not undermine the work of the inspectors, but could even increase their clout, and that of the Secretary General, vis-à-vis Saddam Hussein. As long as they remain, the inspectors would protect Iraq from an American attack, but if not given carte blanche to do their work they will leave.

Third, the announcement would become a precedent for greatly enhanced power to be exercised by the Secretary General of the United Nations. This person is the closest thing we have to a chief executive for the world, and he is in a position from which it is natural to consider the welfare of the people of the world as a whole.

Until now, the veto power enjoyed by the five permanent members of the Security Council (U.S., Great Britain, France, Russia, and China) has generally been considered to be a limit on the power of the United Nations. However by assuming the power to act on behalf of the human race unless the Security Council tells him he cannot, the Secretary General can make the veto work to increase his own power, and thus the power of the United Nations.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if today's tragic world conditions provided the opening for a great leap forward in our world institutions! If he seizes the opportunity fate has given him, Kofi Annan may well go down in history as a "Machiavelli for peace," one of the greatest people of the twenty first century.

And it will be the Bush Administration that made it all possible!

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0311-10.htm

Effendi
03-12-2003, 12:31 PM
.
Ministers face the real prospect of waging an illegal war, which could lead to British soldiers being prosecuted by the newly constituted International Criminal Court (ICC).

The shaky legal grounds upon which Britain and America are expected to launch their military offensive have already been exposed by the UN secretary general, Kofi Annan.

But Mr Annan's warning that military action against Iraq without a second UN resolution would be illegal is being supported by a growing number of senior British lawyers.

Stephen Solley QC, an international human rights lawyer, said yesterday: "I feel this is a defining moment in our history which our children will want to ask us about. No one has made a legal case for war."

But he said it was also clear British troops could be the first to face war crimes charges at the ICC. The court, which was formally opened in the Hague yesterday, has the power to bring to trial individual soldiers, commanders and politicians charged with war crimes.

International lawyers argue that any military attack that killed Iraqi civilians could lead to British soldiers being prosecuted at the new court.

But because America and Iraq are not signatories to the Rome treaty, which created the ICC, their soldiers are immune from prosecution.

The Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, is known to have advised the Prime Minister on the legal issues surrounding the prospect of war, but it is understood that the risk of soldiers being prosecuted by the ICC is of most concern.

Military action in breach of UN resolutions would mean little if the sanction constituted no more than a finding that the UK was in violation of international law.

But potential sentences of life imprisonment for soldiers acting on the orders of the Prime Minister will have concentrated the minds of the Government's law officers. Peter Carter QC, chairman of the Bar's human rights committee, said British commanders would have to "adapt a very different attitude to their American colleagues so they can justify every military act of attrition against every target." He said it could cause real difficulties in joint actions between the forces.

Mr Solley says British troops will feel "vulnerable" to war crimes charges. "No one thought when they were planning the ICC it would have to consider the consequences of a unilateral invasion by America and Britain of another country."

James Crawford, a professor at Cambridge University and a member of Cherie Booth's chambers Matrix, said it was important to realise no "criminal charges" could be brought against Britain or America for a use of force that breached UN or international law. But he added that, under the terms of the ICC, British soldiers and commanders could be prosecuted for war crimes.

In the past few weeks, legal opinion has become increasingly unified in the belief that the US and its allies cannot rely on the principle of anticipatory self-defence to justify action against Iraq in the absence of a fresh UN resolution.

Article 51 of the UN charter allows self-defence only if an armed attack occurs against a member state and, even then, only until the Security Council has taken action.

War within the law?

Suez

Illegal invasion planned in secret by UK and France with Israel after Egypt nationalised Suez canal. France/UK persuaded the UN to order ceasefire plan but the invasion was scrapped amid domestic and US opposition.

Falkland Islands

Acting in self-defence under UN charter, Britain sent a task force to recover the Falklands, violently occupied by Argentina in April 1982.

Kuwait

UN Security Council adopted resolution 678 in November 1990 providing for "all necessary means" to roll back the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

Kosovo

Acting without explicit UN approval, Nato carried out an 11-week bombing campaign against Serbia, citing humanitarian imperatives, to force Slobodan Milosevic to end persecution of the ethnic Albanian majority in Kosovo.

Afghanistan

Acting in self-defence under UN charter, the US and Britain launched action against the Taliban after Afghan rulers refused to hand over Osama bin Laden, blamed for 11 September attacks.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=386253

kiG
03-13-2003, 11:41 PM
First of all soildiers CANT face procecution for followinbg orders....
Second If the US goes to war with iraq TODAY...ITS NOT BRAKING A SINGLE UN LAW....The very first rsolution stated

If Saddam does not destroy his weapons of mass destruction the us has the right to disarm him by force !

WE could go to war tonight and there is nothing ANYONE can do about it

Fuck the UN (spineless gutless socialists) and fuck Blix

Hookups
03-14-2003, 12:14 AM
Yeah, fuck the UN for ONLY trying to protect and follow what is right.
Yeah, fuck the rest of the world and what they think.
Yeah, fuck all the innocent children that will die.
Yeah lets go to war and watch body bags come home.
Yeah

TeknoAXE
03-14-2003, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by Hookups
Yeah, fuck the UN for ONLY trying to protect and follow what is right.
Yeah, fuck the rest of the world and what they think.
Yeah, fuck all the innocent children that will die.
Yeah lets go to war and watch body bags come home.
Yeah

What a steaming pile of cow dung! The UN didn't try to do what is right. That's why we're in this mess today. Let's just be part of the in crowd and ignore everything coming from iraq until Hussein or his son goes wacko and then everyone's begging us to come in to save their asses again.

AXE

ZupanGOD
03-14-2003, 09:47 AM
Scott is it than a "war crime" if we enbold our trust in the UN to do the "right" thing but instead the UN sits on the sidelines as millions are slaughtered?

Carley
03-14-2003, 10:09 AM
http://www.nwtekno.org/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51098&pagenumber=3

Tecknowledgy
03-14-2003, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by Hookups
Yeah, fuck the UN for ONLY trying to protect and follow what is right.
Yeah, fuck the rest of the world and what they think.
Yeah, fuck all the innocent children that will die.
Yeah lets go to war and watch body bags come home.
Yeah

Werd, any war is a crime against people. Why should innocent people die because Bush wants one man out of leadership?

Liberation through murder.

186k\sec
03-14-2003, 10:14 AM
is it than a "war crime" if we enbold our trust in the UN to do the "right" thing but instead the UN sits on the sidelines as millions are slaughtered?
thats just it, we want their approval before we begin the slaughter, and they wont give it..

fucking dicks..

Effendi
03-14-2003, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by ZupanGOD
Scott is it than a "war crime" if we enbold our trust in the UN to do the "right" thing but instead the UN sits on the sidelines as millions are slaughtered?

They are NOT sitting on the sidelines, they are trying to defy this blubbering idiot that "Says" he speaks for us.

Wanker is about to defy the UN and everyone else in the world and kill millions anyway.

Scott!!

Boyd Main
03-14-2003, 01:19 PM
That commondreams article on Kofi Annan's potential for breaking the US war effort is brilliant. Lets hope he does do somehting like that.

ZupanGOD
03-14-2003, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by Effendi


They are NOT sitting on the sidelines, they are trying to defy this blubbering idiot that "Says" he speaks for us.

Wanker is about to defy the UN and everyone else in the world and kill millions anyway.

Scott!!

Gotcha, wanker sux. What I want to know is when nations through out the world embold their trust in the UN to keep the peace, and the UN sits on the sidelines while millions are slaughtered is it a war crime?

ZupanGOD
03-14-2003, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by 186k\sec

thats just it, we want their approval before we begin the slaughter, and they wont give it..

fucking dicks..

I know right? I mean they wouldn't give the US approval to go into Kosovo either, good thing our president at the time, Bill Clinton said fuck you guys in the UN, we need todo what's right. Genocide was ended, and no longer were the people oppressed by that dictator Milosevic.

-Jason

kiG
03-15-2003, 05:09 AM
12 fucking YEARS 18 RESOLUTIONS AND YOU THINK NOWS NOT THE TIME? ! ? !

FRANCE SOLD IRAQ A NUCLEAR RECTOR AFTER THE TRADE IMBARGO WAS ISSUED THATS A VIOLATION OF THE UN
AND NOW YOU LISTEN TO THEM

WTF KIND OF IDIOTS THIK THE US IS GOING TO KILL LITTLE CHILDREN ?????????????????????????????????

SADDAM KILLS CHILDREN

If your kid says something wrong at school GUESS WHAT?
The republican guard comes to your house and kill you and your wife/husband. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AND WERE GOING TO KILL KIDS ? ? ?

THE TIME IS NOW, IN THE END THE DOVES WILL LOOK LIKE FOOLS

Effendi
03-15-2003, 10:24 AM
.
Because NO-ONE is actually as stupid as you portray yourself to be, and that includes most K-9's.

I disagree with some folks on here and rant and rave and argue but that is because I have Some respect for them and I feel it is worth an argument. You on the other hand are unworthy of a response.....

(this member is now on ignore)

Scott!!

corbettfields
03-15-2003, 12:03 PM
i'll keep my opinion about current situation private, but if u actually KNOW anyone from Kosovo/Serbia you'll have a reasonable , first hand input about the UN. Clinton may have been a bit late, but sometimes u need the bombs to drop :( :(

If u are a Kurd or Shi-ite in Iraq, you may think the UN is as criminal as some UN members think Blair/Bush is. I guess you have to be there....

As for the prosecution of US troops? US soes not recognize ICC and has > 500 warheads aimed at Europe, so I wouldnt sweat it.

As for OK because they are following orders ? Er, one word,.. Nuremburg.. and could be arrested by American MPs for specific acts of attrocity. But I'm not sure when last time that happened,....

Effendi
10-24-2005, 08:41 AM
remember this thread?

Scott!!