Lawry,

 

Below.

 

Harry

 

*******************************

Henry George School of Social Science

of Los Angeles

Box 655  Tujunga  CA 91042

818 352-4141

*******************************

 

 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:futurework-

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lawrence deBivort

> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 3:40 AM

> To: [email protected]

> Subject: RE: [Futurework] War Criminals posing as World

> Leaders &Bob Geldof'sMusical Apartheid

>

> Harry, you ask if I understand you correctly, for a list of

> US/"Coalition"

> war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. Here is a partial list, off the

> top of my head.  Please keep in mind that war crimes can be committed,

> but that the legal mechanisms for pursuing those responsible have then to

>confirm the commission of the crimes.

 

Lawry, I didn’t really ask for a list of such crimes – I concentrated on one of the unsupported certainties that masquerades as truth. That is, the idea that Saddam was our “client” during the Iraq-Iran war. Certainly we were friendly enough to send him food and airliners. But he was fighting Iran who we didn’t like. You’ll recall Churchill’s remark when chided for supporting Stalin.

 

(about)

 

“If Satan himself were to declare himself to be against Hitler, I would at least make a favorable mention of him in the Commons.”

 

Strangely, the Iranians fought the war with F-14’s and F-15’s and other American planes, not to mention the infamous TOW missiles. The Iranian American planes did very well against Saddam’s large Air Force of Russian planes.

 

However, thanks for the list. More comments below.

>

>

> Crimes pertaining to the Law of War (Belligerence)

>

> 1. Failure to provide a declaration of war with legitimate casus belli

> 2. War was "aggressive", and not "defensive"

> 3. Good faith negotiations were rejected prior to commencement of

> war

> 4. War targeted heads of state

> 5. War used force disproportional to purported casus belli

> 6. War turned into occupation

> 7. Civilian population was targeted

> 8. Countries have been blockaded and their trade and freedom of access have

> been interfered with in the absence of a Declaration of War, or the

> commencement of hostilities

 

The UN promised Saddam “serious consequences” if he didn’t comply. Saddam simply laughed at them – until a couple of hundred thousand troops surrounded him, whereupon he became very conciliatory. I don’t think that “good faith” was evident.

 

None of us know whether there were WMD in Iraq before those troops loomed large. But, as Bush  says, everyone thought there was. If there was, it could easily have been taken elsewhere (driving a few trucks into Syria). If someone could make that 300 ton weapons cache disappear, a few labs on wheels would be no problem.

 

You may remember that we stumbled across a cache of 5,000 chemical protective suits. Were these a holdover from previous times, or something missed when they were fleeing with the evidence? I think the first – but maybe it was the second. Nothing is as certain as both right and left assert it is.

 

It turns out that the Niger Uranium bit stemmed from some real, some forged, French Intelligence documents that indicated that Saddam was seeking yellow cake. MI6 passed this on to the CIA. (This was probably a French anti-Blair ploy.)

 

It has become an anti-Bush ploy.

 

We couldn’t get the UN to support their own resolve of “serious consequences” for Saddam. We now know that important people in France and Russia (and the UN itself) were on the take. Perhaps more important was the $17 billion or so that Saddam owed the two countries. Also, a large Russian firm had given Saddam more than $3 billion to retain exploitation rights to a large oilfield. All this might be lost with hostilities, so there couldn’t be hostilities.

 

France and Russia may have been voting against on principle – but they had a lot to lose if war took place. Make your choice.

 

So, what to do about Saddam?

 

Using 20/20 hindsight the following scenario isn’t unlikely.

 

Bribery at the UN and in several other countries might soon have stopped the sanctions. As it is that seemed close. Perhaps, the other three pipelines would have then started operating at full spate. Their fairly poor condition (except for the “illegal” one through Syria) might possibly be Saddam’s reaction to the Oil for Food Program. He didn’t care to let the oil flow with the restrictions and payment to the UN.

 

Saddam would have allowed his UN friends – the Russians - to exploit the northern fields in return for tanks, guns, and aircraft. The French no doubt would throw in some more Mirage fighters, and plenty of sophisticated electronics (they did it before).

 

Saddam would have re-built his army. (His sons might kill him and take over).    

 

Perhaps the US would be arming Iran as the most likely anti-Saddam force.

 

All that would be left would be for Saddam to be elected to the Human Rights Chair at the UN.

 

Maybe we should take out Saddam before any of this happens. (I have previously set out the invasion as an alternative strategy to try positively to settle the Middle East problem.)

 

However, history is against Bush. As I’ve said, if he fails, or is seen to fail, he’ll be everything that’s been hurled against him. If he pulls it off – he’ll be a visionary.

 

> Crimes pertaining to the Geneva Accords

>

> 9. Occupation has harmed (killing, maiming, displacement) the

> civilian population

> 10. Occupation has harmed the economic structure

> 11. Occupation has impeded the social, cultural lives of the civilian

> population

> 12. Civilians have been subject to warrant-less detention, and have

> not been afforded proper hearings

> 13. Military and civilians have been subject to torture, humiliation

> and inhumane conditions

> 14. Military and civilian prisoners were denied visits by the

> International Red Cross.

> 15. Military and civilian prisoners were denied contact with families

> and representatives

> 16. Military and civilian prisoners were denied visits and

> representation by their governments of citizenship

 

I would attribute much of this to the type of fighting that has erupted. When an enemy fights from amid the civilian population, either you get killed, or you fire back and inevitably kill civilians. When the terrorists put the fear of death into civilians, a technique to make them talk is to instill them with greater fear – which can be done without the extremes we have encountered.

 

The IBC counted 7,350 civilian deaths during the active war – another 15,437 since then (or when they are confirmed, as many as 18,464. The IBC blames these on the US as can be done.

 

> Crimes pertaining to the Law of the Sea

>

> 17. Shipping of non-belligerent countries have been forcibly

> stopped and searched, and some turned away from their courses.

> 18. Crew have been removed from their ships

> 19. Non-belligerent vessels have been attacked and sunk

 

Know nothing about this. Did this happen in the Gulf?

 

Anyway, thanks for the list.

 

 

> Well, as I say, this is all from memory and what comes to mind

> right off.

> >From several of these general charges, multiple related legal

> charges would be distinguished, as, for example, the Geneva Convention spells

> things out in considerable detail with multiple laws.

>

> The law can be found in any law textbook on international law at

> any university law library or law firm, or on the web (probably), and

> the Geneva Conventions can be found on the UN website.

 

> Cheers,

> Lawry

 

 

_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

Reply via email to