Could You Be a War Criminal?


http://ragemaker.com/stories/2005/war_criminal.htm

Could You Be a War Criminal?

....individuals have international duties which transcend the
national obligations of obedience imposed by the individual state.
Nuremberg International Military Tribunal (1947)

You may be astonished that anyone would accuse you of being a war criminal. You
probably haven't killed or tortured anyone, yourself. In fact, you may know very
little about whether your government is doing anything like that. Furthermore,
you may not even want to know.

It is the moral responsibility of citizens, however, to inform themselves. Even
if others are too unintelligent, morally deficient or cowardly to admit that
atrocities are occurring around them, it is still your individual responsibility
to stand up against these acts of murder and brutality. So you may be surprised
to learn that you could be put on trial for failing to fight the crimes against
humanity your country is perpetrating. If you fail to speak out against them,
you are most assuredly complicit.

Even lacking in-depth knowledge of your country's actions, how can you condone
unjustified war, torture, rape and the murder of thousands of innocent people?
You must understand that attacking, invading and occupying the country of Iraq ,
no matter how vile its previous government, has absolutely nothing to do with
the attacks on your own country by extremist ideologues -- none of whom came
from Iraq , nor did they receive support from that country!

Law professor Frances Boyle has compiled a list of war crimes committed in Iraq
which is available below. If you lack the resources or ability to determine the
facts on your own, ask for assistance from someone who can help you discover the
truth. It's your responsibility to find out.

Perhaps you take comfort in knowing that throughout history people have made war
on one another. It is part of life; even part of civilized life, you may say.
You may even consider this a minor quirk of history which will pass like a
troublesome storm or merely politics as usual. I assure you this is no more
politics as usual than it was in Germany circa 1938. Are you so insensitive or
lacking the empathy to imagine what it would be like for you, your husbands,
wives or children to be tortured, maimed or slaughtered in your own home?

It shouldn't be necessary to explain that the people of Iraq are human beings
who love and marry and raise children they cherish and expect to be safe in
their homes. Fact is, for years they lived in modern cities similar to your own.
Aside from speaking a different language, it would be difficult to pick them out
of a crowd of your fellow Americans. Even their tightly controlled and highly
policed society differs little from the one the United States is creating by
rolling back our civil liberties. And contrary to the statements of some
American leaders, you could safely go out for coffee in Baghdad before the
American invasion.

Maybe you are among those who find it absurd to attempt to impose rules on
something as barbaric as warfare. But you live in a country that imprisons
people and sanctions their execution in accordance with specific rules and
procedures of its criminal justice system. The American Pledge of Allegiance
even includes the statement: "justice for all." Do you think justice should stop
at your own country's borders?

Former United Nations chief weapons inspector Scott Ritter and others who have
compared American and British leaders to Nazi war criminals have been criticized
for drawing parallels between the behavior of the United States today and that
of Nazi Germany more than half a century ago. Admittedly the comparison may be
incomplete, but it provides an opportunity to examine how international law
deals with those who commit crimes against humanity.

In the fall of 1945, following the end of World War II, the Nuremberg Trial
(also known as the International Military Tribunal) got under way. When the
trial ended, four members of the Nazi leadership were given lengthy prison
sentences, three were sentenced to imprisonment for life and 12 were hanged. In
addition to the obvious Nazi villains such as Hermann Goering, ordinary citizens
who tolerated Nazi tyranny were also tried. And despite their strenuous
defenses, they were also guilty. We are all responsible for being aware of
what's going on in our society; we can't plead ignorance. No one can
legitimately be excused with claims that they were only following orders,
abiding by the law or afraid to challenge the authority of their leaders.
Neither can you be excused for saying you were "supporting the troops" or
acquiescing in your silence.

So if you are sitting by idly as your country tortures and murders innocent
people or you consider those who oppose their slaughter somehow un-American or
psychologically unhealthy, it is time for you to wake up and smell the stench of
death. It?s all around you!

Just because you haven't been caught and hanged doesn't mean you aren?t a war
criminal.

http://ragemaker.com/stories/2005/resources/laws_of_war.htm

Iraq and the Laws of War

By Francis A. Boyle

On 19 March 2003 President Bush Jr. commenced his criminal war against Iraq by
ordering a so-called decapitation strike against the President of Iraq in
violation of a 48-hour ultimatum he had given publicly to the Iraqi President
and his sons to leave the country. This duplicitous behavior violated the
customary international laws of war set forth in the 1907 Hague Convention on
the Opening of Hostilities to which the United States is still a contracting
party, as evidenced by paragraphs 20, 21, 22, and 23 of U.S. Army Field Manual
27-10 (1956). Furthermore, President Bush Jr.'s attempt to assassinate the
President of Iraq was an international crime in its own right. Of course the
Bush Jr. administration's war of aggression against Iraq constituted a Crime
against Peace as defined by the Nuremberg Charter (1945), the Nuremberg Judgment
(1946), and the Nuremberg Principles (1950) as well as by paragraph 498 of U.S.
Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956).

Next came the Pentagon's military strategy of inflicting "shock and awe" upon
the city of Baghdad . To the contrary, article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg
Charter defined the term "War crimes" to include: ". . . wanton destruction of
cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity. .
.." The Bush Jr. administration's infliction of "shock and awe" upon Baghdad and
its inhabitants constituted the wanton destruction of that city, and it was
certainly not justified by "military necessity," which is always defined by and
includes the laws of war. Such terror bombings of cities have been criminal
behavior under international law since before the Second World War: Nagasaki ,
Hiroshima , Tokyo , Dresden , London , Guernica .

On 1 May 2003 President Bush Jr. theatrically landed on a U.S. aircraft carrier
off the coast of San Diego to declare: "Major combat operations in Iraq have
ended." He spoke before a large banner proclaiming: " MISSION ACCOMPLISHED." As
of that date, the United States government became the belligerent occupant of
Iraq under international law and practice.

This legal status was formally recognized by U.N. Security Council Resolution
1483 of 22 May 2003 . For the purpose of this analysis here, the relevant
portions of that Security Council Resolution 1483 (2003) are as follows:

.. . . .

Noting the letter of 8 May 2003 from the Permanent Representatives of the United
States of America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
to the President of the Security Council (S/2003/538) and recognizing the
specific authorities, responsibilities, and obligations under applicable
international law of these states as occupying powers under unified command (the
"Authority"),

.. . . .

5. Calls upon all concerned to comply fully with their obligations under
international law including in particular the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the
Hague Regulations of 1907; . . .

In that aforementioned 8 May 2003 letter from the United States and the United
Kingdom to the President of the Security Council, both countries pledged to the
Security Council that: "The States participating in the Coalition will strictly
abide by their obligations under international law, including those relating to
the essential humanitarian needs of the people of Iraq." No point would be
served here by attempting to document the gross and repeated violations of that
solemn and legally binding pledge by the United States and the United Kingdom
from that date until today since it would require a separate book to catalog all
of the war crimes, crimes against humanity, and grave human rights violations
inflicted by the United States and the United Kingdom in Iraq and against its
people. Suffice it to say here that no earlier than President Bush's 1 May 2003
Declaration of the end of hostilities in Iraq, and certainly no later than U.N.
Security Resolution 1483 of 22 May 2003, both the United States and the United
Kingdom have been the belligerent occupants of Iraq subject to the Four Geneva
Conventions of 1949, the 1907 Hague Regulations on land warfare, U.S. Army Field
Manual 27-10 (1956) or respectively its British equivalent, the humanitarian
provisions of Additional Protocol One of 1977 to the Four Geneva Conventions of
1949, and the customary international laws of war.

I do not take the position that the United States is the belligerent occupant of
the entire state of Afghanistan . But certainly the laws of war and
international humanitarian law apply to the United States in its conduct of
hostilities in Afghanistan as well as to its presence there. It is not generally
believed that the United States is the belligerent occupant of Guantanamo , Cuba
.. But those detainees held there by United States armed forces who were
apprehended in or near the theaters of hostilities in Afghanistan and Iraq are
protected by either the Third Geneva Convention protecting prisoners of war or
the Fourth Geneva Convention protecting civilians. In any event every detainee
held by the United States government in Guantanamo is protected by the
International Covenant on a Civil and Political Rights, to which the United
States is a contracting party. A similar analysis likewise applies pari passu to
those numerous but unknown torture and detention facilities operated around the
world by the Central Intelligence Agency. America 's own "Gulag Archipelago." No
wonder the Bush Jr. administration has done everything humanly possible to
sabotage the International Criminal Court!

The United States government's installation of the so-called Interim Government
of Iraq during the summer of 2004 did not materially alter this legal situation.
Under the laws of war, this so-called Interim Government of Iraq is nothing more
than a "puppet government." As the belligerent occupant of Iraq the United
States government is free to establish a puppet government if it so desires. But
under the laws of war, the United States government remains fully accountable
for the behavior of its puppet government.

These conclusions are made quite clear by paragraph 366 of U.S. Army Field
Manual 27-10 (1956):

366. Local Governments Under Duress and Puppet Governments

The restrictions placed upon the authority of a belligerent government cannot be
avoided by a system of using a puppet government, central or local, to carry out
acts which would be unlawful if performed directly by the occupant. Acts induced
or compelled by the occupant are nonetheless its acts.

As the belligerent occupant of Iraq, the United States government is obligated
to ensure that its puppet Interim Government of Iraq obeys the Four Geneva
Conventions of 1949, the 1907 Hague Regulations on land warfare, U.S. Army Field
Manual 27-10 (1956), the humanitarian provisions of Additional Protocol One of
1977 to the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949, and the customary international
laws of war. Any violation of the laws of war, international humanitarian law,
and human rights committed by its puppet Interim Government of Iraq are legally
imputable to the United States government. As the belligerent occupant of Iraq,
both the United States government itself as well as its concerned civilian
officials and military officers are fully and personally responsible under
international criminal law for all violations of the laws of war, international
humanitarian law, and human rights committed by its puppet Interim Government of
Iraq such as, for example, reported death squads operating under its auspicies.

Furthermore, it was a total myth, fraud, lie, and outright propaganda for the
Bush Jr. administration to maintain that it was somehow magically transferring
"sovereignty" to its puppet Interim Government of Iraq during the summer of
2004. Under the laws of war, sovereignty is never transferred from the defeated
sovereign such as Iraq to a belligerent occupant such as the United States .
This is made quite clear by paragraph 353 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10
(1956): "Belligerent occupation in a foreign war, being based upon the
possession of enemy territory, necessarily implies that the sovereignty of the
occupied territory is not vested in the occupying power. Occupation is
essentially provisional."

If there were any doubt about this matter, paragraph 358 of U.S. Army Field
Manual 27-10 (1956) makes this fact crystal clear:

358. Occupation Does Not Transfer Sovereignty

Being an incident of war, military occupation confers upon the invading force
the means of exercising control for the period of occupation. It does not
transfer the sovereignty to the occupant, but simply the authority or power to
exercise some of the rights of sovereignty. The exercise of these rights results
from the established power of the occupant and from the necessity of maintaining
law and order, indispensable both to the inhabitants and the occupying force. .
.. .

Therefore, the United States government never had any "sovereignty" in the first
place to transfer to its puppet Interim Government of Iraq. In Iraq the
sovereignty still resides in the hands of the people of Iraq and in the state
known as the Republic of Iraq , where it has always been. The legal regime
described above will continue so long as the United States remains the
belligerent occupant of Iraq . Only when that U.S. belligerent occupation of
Iraq is factually terminated can the people of Iraq have the opportunity to
exercise their international legal right of sovereignty by means of free, fair,
democratic, and uncoerced elections. So as of this writing, the United States
and the United Kingdom remain the belligerent occupants of Iraq despite their
bogus "transfer" of their non-existent "sovereignty" to their puppet Interim
Government of Iraq.

Even U.N. Security Council Resolution 1546 of 8 June 2004 "Welcoming" the
installation of the puppet Interim Government of Iraq recognized this undeniable
fact of international law. Preambular language in this Resolution referred to
"the letter of 5 June 2004 from the United States Secretary of State to the
President of the Council, which is annexed to this resolution." In other words,
that annexed letter is a legally binding part of Resolution 1546 (2004). Therein
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell pledged to the U.N. Security Council with
respect to the so-called Multinational Force (MNF) in Iraq : "In addition, the
forces that make up the MNF are and will remain committed at all times to act
consistently with their obligations under the law of armed conflict, including
the Geneva Conventions." Pursuant thereto, the United States and the United
Kingdom still remain the belligerent occupants of Iraq subject to the Four
Geneva Conventions of 1949, the Hague Regulations of 1907, U.S. Army Field
Manual 27-10 (1956) or respectively its British equivalent, the humanitarian
provisions of Additional Protocol I of 1977 to the Four Geneva Conventions of
1949, and the customary international laws of war.

This brings the analysis to the so-called Constitution of Iraq that was
allegedly drafted by the puppet Interim Government of Iraq under the impetus of
the United States government. Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Regulations on land
warfare flatly prohibits the change in a basic law such as a state's
Constitution during the course of a belligerent occupation: "The authority of
the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the
latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure as far as
possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely
prevented, the laws in force in the country." This exact same prohibition has
been expressly incorporated in haec verba into paragraph 363 of U.S. Army Field
Manual 27-10 (1956). To the contrary, the United States has demonstrated gross
disrespect toward every law in Iraq that has stood in the way of its imperial
designs and petroleum ambitions, including and especially the pre-invasion 1990
Interim Constitution for the Republic of Iraq .

As for any subsequent Security Council Resolutions, the United Nations Security
Council has no power or authority to alter one iota of the laws of war since
they are peremptory norms of international law. For the Security Council even to
purport to authorize U.S. violations of the laws of war in Iraq would render its
so-voting Member States aiders and abettors to U.S. war crimes and thus guilty
of committing war crimes in their own right. Any Security Council attempt to
condone, authorize or approve violations of the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949,
the 1907 Hague Regulations, the humanitarian provisions of Additional Protocol I
of 1977 to the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949, and the customary international
laws of war by the United States and the United Kingdom in Iraq would be ultra
vires, a legal nullity, and void ab initio.

In fact, the United Nations Organization itself has become complicit in U.S. and
U.K. international crimes in Iraq in violation of the customary international
laws of war set forth in paragraph 500 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956):
". . . complicity in the commission of, crimes against peace, crimes against
humanity, and war crimes are punishable." The United Nations Organization is
walking down the path of the League of Nations toward Trotsky's "ashcan" of
history. And George Bush Jr. and Tony Blair are heading towards their own
Judgment at Nuremberg whose sixtieth anniversary the rest of the world
gratefully but wistfully commemorates this year. Never again!

- - - - - - - -
Frances Boyle is an attorney on the U of Chicago law faculty. He was
instrumental in getting rape during war added as a "crime against humanity"
under the international code.

http://ragemaker.com/stories/2005/resources/laws_of_war.htm


Lord Cerne Abbas

To rebel is right, to disobey is a duty, to act is necessary !

http://www.veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk/identity.html

http://www.veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk/mylinks.html

http://lordcerneabbas.blogspot.com/
.