: One law for us : Brian Cloughley : The United States is usually to the forefront in pursuing alleged war : criminals and seems relentless in its determination to bring to : justice such figures as Saddam Hussain, Slobodan Milosevic and Osama : bin Laden. It has a pretty selective list of baddies, but most of us : would agree with the US that these people should be made to answer in : a court of law for what appear to be criminal acts. One would imagine, : then, that the International Criminal Court, or ICC, would be : America's flavour of the month. Not so. : Justin Brown of The Christian Science Monitor put it well in saying : that "[creation of] The ICC�has been hailed as a breakthrough in : global justice. If realised, it would replace the United : Nations-backed war crimes tribunals and handle cases of some of the : world's most feared dictators." Sounds good. At the same time, Barbara : Crossette of The New York Times wrote that the ICC's "jurisdiction : will include genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity". Better : and better. : Then George Gedda of the Associated Press told us that, "The State : Department has offered a reward of up to five million dollars for : information leading to apprehension of Yugoslav President Slobodan : Milosevic, Radovan Karadzic, Ratko Mladic, and any others indicted by : the Balkans tribunal on war crimes charges." : Great, we think: we're heading in the right direction, because if this : is what the US so desperately wants--a system for detection, : investigation, indictment, detention, charging and appearance in court : of people who are held to have flouted international law--then the ICC : is the way to go. : The arrest, for example, of retired Serbian general, Stanislav Galic, : in December last year by Nato soldiers, for alleged war crimes in : 1992-95, is a good case in point. He is accused of "violating the laws : and customs of war" and "crimes against humanity". : The fact that the soldiers who arrested Galic were from Nato is : especially notable, because the US is the mainstay of Nato, whose : commander is always an American general, and if Nato is in the : business of arresting the ungodly and bringing them to justice, then : we should give three cheers for that. More power to Nato's elbow in : that regard--and to those who want to create the International : Criminal Court, which is specifically designed to deal with such : people and should therefore receive unqualified backing by the US. : Not quite, says David Scheffer, the US 'ambassador at large for war : crimes'. Mr Scheffer says the ICC is not altogether what America : wants. In fact, he makes it abundantly clear that it is not in any way : what America wants, because the US demands and insists that members of : its armed forces be exempt from any international process of : investigation, indictment, detention, charging and ensuring appearance : in court, under any circumstances, no matter what evidence of : wrongdoing on their part may be established. : In this, Mr Scheffer takes his lead from Jesse Helms, chairman of the : Senate Foreign Relations Committee, whose legacy to the world will be : one of inglorious conceit rather than estimable distinction. But no : matter how pathetic Senator Helms may be in overweening inflexibility : and vainglorious self-aggrandizement, he is an important fellow, : because he says that any motion to propose that the US should support : creation of the International Criminal Court will be "dead on arrival" : if sent to his fief. : So the US is adamant about refusing to countenance creation of this : much-needed and widely-welcomed body. But its rationale for being : rigid and obstinate in totally opposing the court seems puzzling, to : say the least, given its near-obsession with war criminals. : Well, it is puzzling until you look at the record of the United States : in waging war recently. Then one realises that there could be a : problem for the US in the matter of allegations of war crimes, because : the circumstances in which it conducted airstrikes against Afghanistan : and Yugoslavia, and continues to strike Iraq, are controversial in : international law. : In fact, one might go so far as to say that an aggrieved party : alleging that America has committed some illegal acts here and there : might have a leg or two to stand on. Let us first consider the cruise : missile attack on Afghanistan in August 1998 which killed people and : was undoubtedly prima facie violation of "the laws and customs of : war," for which crime General Galic was apprehended by Nato forces. : If Afghanistan had declared war on America, then the US would have : been within its rights to crack the nuts with a sledgehammer, although : it would have looked rather silly in the process. It might even be : argued that if an agent of the Afghan government had been convicted of : blowing up an American embassy, or indulged in similar evil, then it : might have been understandable had the US fired 100 cruise missiles : against the country. : But Afghanistan was not at war with America, nor had an Afghan : committed a crime against or involving America or any of its citizens. : The situation was that a Saudi Arabian national, Osama bin Laden, : suspected of bombing US embassies in Africa, was in Afghanistan. The : Kabul government, which Washington refuses to recognise, declined : America's request to detain Mr Bin Laden and (presumably) hand him : over to a representative of the US. So Afghanistan was bombed in order : to kill him. : : Mr Bin Laden, it almost goes without saying, was unscathed, but : several people died. And the point should be made that Mr Bin Laden : was not legally sentenced by US authorities or anyone else to die by : explosion of cruise missile. Indubitably there is a case for : international investigation. : Second, there was the Kosovo caper, in which US and British bombs and : cruise missiles were rained on Yugoslavia for 78 days and nights in an : attempt to break the will of the Yugoslav people who they thought : would be driven to rise up and topple their leader, Milosevic. Of : course they did not, and only a handful of tanks and very few guns : were destroyed, but several hundred civilians were killed and hundreds : of thousands fled Kosovo. : Amnesty International's report on the (mainly British-American) : assault on Yugoslavia says that "civilian deaths could have been : significantly reduced if Nato forces had adhered to the rules of war." : (One is inclined to believe Amnesty rather than the UN or the British : parliament's foreign affairs committee concerning war crimes in : Yugoslavia, for reasons I shall give in another article.) At the very : least, there is a case to answer, and under international law the US : should be prepared to provide facts and figures about the conduct of : the war. It refuses to do so. : Then there is Iraq, which US and British planes attack every few days. : The facts about an airstrike on May 17, in a rare admission by a US : spokesman, reported in the Washington Post on June 16, speak for : themselves: "�a review of post-strike data indicates that one of the : targets, believed to have been a surface-to-air missile site, now : appears to have been a nomadic camp with a number of livestock in the : area. Every effort is being made to avoid collateral damage to : civilians and civilian property. Ultimate responsibility, however, : lies with Saddam Hussain." : Come again? It was not Saddam Hussain who drove the aircraft that : killed 19 people and injured 46. There were US citizens piloting the : planes that "made repeated passes over the congregated villagers, : firing missiles and raking the area with machine guns." The US : statement is insulting to the world at large--for how on earth could a : bedouin encampment possibly be mistaken for a missile base?--but it is : also deplorable in its arrogant disregard of human rights. There is a : case to answer, here, too, in international law, and one hopes that : America's energetic press will not let this one go. : So there is little wonder the United States has no intention of : supporting the creation of the International Criminal Court. It is : trying to wriggle and jiggle by making a ridiculous offer of support : for the treaty establishing the court, in that "It is critical that : the United States armed forces not be subject to physical surrender : [says Mr Scheffer]; [and] if we can get this fix in the treaty�the : United States will be a good neighbour to this treaty." This is : preposterous stuff, but there is more. Says the Washington Post's : Colum Lynch, "A bill before congress would prohibit US military : assistance to any country that has ratified the treaty, with the : exception of Nato and some other US allies such as Israel." : The world's most powerful country is going a step too far in its : authoritarian attitude to the rest of us. The bullying has ceased to : be jovial and well-intentioned and is becoming bizarre and : dictatorial. The US won't ratify the nuclear test-ban treaty, yet : demands that every other nation do so. It criticises child labour in : Third World countries but has hundreds of thousands of child farm : workers living in disgusting conditions of deprivation. : It will not agree to creation of the International Court of Justice : because, although it is energetic in pursuit of some alleged war : criminals, it will not accept that Americans could ever commit a war : crime, and demands that even if they did they should on no account be : held responsible for their actions. : And if other countries decide to support the treaty establishing the : court, the Congress wants to deny them US military assistance : forever--unless, of course, they have a bit of clout themselves and : can answer back, or if they have an enormous diaspora of influential : voters in the US, in which case America will graciously continue its : military cooperation with them. : This is barely believable stuff, and makes the US look discreditable, : overbearing, petulant, immature and amateurish in foreign policy. What : it comes down to is simple: one law for America and one law for the : rest of us. We had better hope that Mr Putin gets his country back on : track, because someone is going to have to stand up to America, and : the sooner the better. (Oh, and do you know who else voted against the : treaty to create the court? This is a good one: why, Iraq, of : course!). <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
