Alt+left-arrow to return from a link
Iraq wmd war (2003)
Iraq attack: WarTalk-2
by Charles Judson Harwood Jr.
War-talk: Day 22 April 14-15 2003
• Iraq wmd war timeline: 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005-2006, 2007-2008
• Congress debates, votes
• Iran uranium timeline
• Israel/Palestine timeline:
• Palestine Peace Not Apartheid
• The Israel Lobby
• Reprisals
MISSKNOWALL (506.4, Apr-14 8:17 am, in reply to 506.1):
“Those pockets of resistance from Saddam’s loyalist groups ... creates an atmosphere much like that which Israel faces with the Palestinians which those fedeeyen forces of Saddam call an ‘occupation’ ...”
LINDBROOK (506.5, Apr-14 8:29 am, in reply to 506.4):
“This IS an “occupation”. ... I know some of the Bush junta’s supporters want to call the whole thing a “liberation”. Fine. But the “liberation” only lasts as long as it takes to depose the government. After that, it’s an occupation.”
HWOODCJ (506.111, Apr-14 12:57 pm, in reply to 506.5):
The Law of Land Warfare {10.3mb.pdf/txt, source} (U.S. Army Field Manual, FM 27-10, July 18 1956, and amendment dated July 15 1976) {SuDoc: D 101.20:27-10, ditto, LCCN: 56062174, OCLC: 39027139, GPOCat, WorldCat}: Chapter 6: Occupation:
“355. Occupation as Question of Fact. Military occupation is a question of fact. It presupposes a hostile invasion, resisted or unresisted, as a result of which the invader has rendered the invaded government incapable of publicly exercising its authority, and that the invader has successfully substituted its own authority for that of the legitimate government in the territory invaded.”
“368. Nature of Government. It is immaterial whether the government over an enemy’s territory consists in a military or civil or mixed administration. Its character is the same and the source of its authority the same. It is a government imposed by force, and the legality of its acts is determined by the law of war.”
From:
To: HWOODCJ Apr-14 1:37 pm
Lindsay Howerton (WPFORUMS) (140 of 714)
Lindsay Howerton (WPFORUMS) (506.99, Apr-14 12:42 pm):
“The White House this morning escalated sharp diplomatic warnings to Syria, which the administration accused of harboring former Iraqi leaders and developing chemical weapons. White House Escalates Diplomatic Pressure on Syria”
HWOODCJ (506.140, Apr-14 1:37 pm, in reply to 506.99):
Syria harboring Iraqis is a humanitarian act.
I agree with the position of Syria’s deputy ambassador to the US (Imad Moustapha) that Syria will certainly *not* hand Iraqis over to the law-breaking rogue-state USA.
If any UN Criminal Court prosecutor wants them, on the basis of a valid criminal indictment, then they would hand them over. Or (as Moustapha said) to any legitimate Iraqi government (ie: not one imposed by the US).
“Justice”, in Powell’s lexicon, is US Military Tribunals, staffed by judges and jurors in the military, with an eye on their future careers, who know what verdict their masters want, facilitated by rules of evidence outlawed in normal US court proceedings, secret ‘evidence’, majority verdicts, and no appeals (like Nazi Peoples’ Courts).
This, if a PoW is lucky enough to ever see a ‘trial’ in the first place, instead of indefinite detention.
From:
To: HWOODCJ Apr-14 8:47 pm
ORLANDOJACK (481 of 714)
ORLANDOJACK (506.449, Apr-14 12:42 pm, in reply to 506.445):
“Don’t worry — we will find them. The looking has just begun. But then, the U.S. bashers will say “we planted them” {WMD: weapons of mass destruction}.”
HWOODCJ (506.481, Apr-14 8:47 pm, in reply to 506.449):
You can be certain of this. What other inference can there be for Bush’s refusal to allow the UN inspectors to return?
CFRENSLEY to All (506.167, Apr-14 2:11 pm):
“By William J. Broad, The New York Times:
The Bush administration may be legally bound to let independent inspectors confirm any findings of unconventional weapons in Iraq, administration and independent arms experts said. But they added that the White House, which has resisted help from the United Nations in the search for weapons, might decide to ignore such legalities.” http://seattlepi. nwsource.com/national/117343_weapons14. html
HWOODCJ (506.236, Apr-14 3:27 pm, in reply to 506.167):
As the government of Iraq, the US military dictatorship can exclude the UN inspectors (and any one else) from Iraq. And, the US can prohibit internal travel within Iraq, by anyone, anywhere, and censor the press (to prohibit criticism of its military occupation). And these things the US has done in all prior military occupations:
The Law of Land Warfare {10.3mb.pdf/txt, source} (U.S. Army Field Manual, FM 27-10, July 18 1956, and amendment dated July 15 1976) {SuDoc: D 101.20:27-10, ditto, LCCN: 56062174, OCLC: 39027139, GPOCat, WorldCat}: Chapter 6: Occupation:
“375. Freedom of Movement. The occupant may withdraw from individuals the right to change their residence, restrict freedom of internal movement, forbid visits to certain districts, prohibit emigration and immigration (but see GC, art. 48; par. 381 herein), and require that all individuals carry identification documents.
376. Commercial Restrictions. The occupant has the right to regulate commercial intercourse in the occupied territory. It may subject such intercourse to such prohibitions and restrictions as are essential to the purposes of the occupation. The commander of the occupying forces will usually find it advisable to forbid intercourse between the occupied territory and the territory still in the possession of the enemy.
377. Censorship. The belligerent occupant may establish censorship of the press, radio, theater, motion pictures, and television, of correspondence, and of all other means of communication. It may prohibit entirely the publication of newspapers or prescribe regulations for their publication and circulation. The occupant is not required to furnish facilities for postal service, but may take charge of them itself, especially if the officials of the occupied district fail to act or to obey its orders.
378. Means of Transportation. The belligerent occupant exercises authority over all means of transportation, both public and private, within the occupied district, and may seize them and regulate their operation.”
SLCOLEMAN (506.248, Apr-14 3:41 pm, in reply to 506.236):
“Yes, Yes, Yes, you are absolutely right. Yes, Iraq is full of Saddam’s thugs and ex-Generals. I figure it will take at least 2 years to get rid of them all. And if the US military is smart, they will keep close tabs on their new and inexperienced governing body. Look at Germany and Japan after World War II. Fact is, reconstruction and democracy took 20 or more years in Germany and Japan.
The problem today is Democrats (liberals) wants instant success. They want instant victory, instant law and order, and instant peace and democracy. But that’s not gonna happen.”
CFRENSLEY (506.254, Apr-14 3:51 pm, in reply to 506.236):
“Um, that is a US Army field manual and has nothing to do with international legal authorities.
The occupation of Iraq, just as was the invasion, is completely illegal under the UN charter, which is a treaty duly signed and ratified by the United States.”
HWOODCJ (506.269, Apr-14 4:06 pm, in reply to 506.254):
I agree that the invasion is unlawful but, be that as it may, the continuing activities of the United States in Iraq must comply with the laws of war if *those* additional continuing activities are to be lawful (even though the invasion be unlawful). US officials can be guilty (to use a methaphor) of both murder *and* rape and torture and theft, etc.
The US Army Field Manual 27-10 (The Law of Land Warfare), while not perfect, is a good general account of the laws of war
and, in the case of occupation law, is based on the Hague-4 treaty {source, copy} (1907, ratified by the US in 1909), status (Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Netherlands, depositary, 1907 Hague Peace Conventions), with interpretations from criminal trials following WW2. The Hague-4 treaty: http://www.yale.edu/ lawweb/ avalon/ lawofwar/ hague04.htm
CFRENSLEY (506.281, Apr-14 4:15 pm, in reply to 506.269):
“Let me look further through the information you are providing. Can you clarify for me what it is you intend with through the presentation of the information? Thanks for sticking with me on this.”
W8TLFTR13 (506.277, Apr-14 4:11 pm, in reply to 506.269):
HWOODCJ: “I agree that the invasion is unlawful ...”
“How is it unlawful? Does the U.S. need UN approval to protect itself and its national interests?
Isn’t it “unlawful” that Iraq has not complied with UN sanctions for 12 years? How did the UN plan on enforcing its own resolutions?”
HWOODCJ (506.312, Apr-14 4:35 pm, in reply to 506.277):
The best evidence that Bush and his henchmen considered it unlawful was his decision to lie about what France said, as the essential pretext for violating a Security Council resolution he had, instead, agreed to obey, which provided a solution to the problem he claimed as his war-aim (disarmament), as well as a method for authorizing war if inspections reached an impasse.
We’ll never have a judicial decision whether it’s unlawful because the United States, like Nazi Germany, is a rogue state which sets itself above the law and will not permit any court to sit in judgment on its foreign activities.
W8TLFTR13: “Isn’t it “unlawful” that Iraq has not complied with UN sanctions for 12 years? How did the UN plan on enforcing its own resolutions?”
Setting aside Iraq’s claim that it has no WMD, did Iraq’s unlawful activities (as you describe them) result in the killings of thousands of people, the looting of its National Museum, the burning of its national archives, looting on an industrial scale, etc?
And the sanctions you refer to, which did kill thousands of people, were maintained in force by the United States veto threats. I believe you intended to mention UN resolutions, not sanctions.
SPOOKER4U to ARTYCHOKE1 (506.151, Apr-14 12:42 pm, in reply to 506.145):
“The United States military is 100% voluntary. Those men and women know what is expected of them PRIOR to enlisting. No one forced them to sign up for the military.”
MARCAURELIUS (506.154, Apr-14 1:57 pm, in reply to 506.151):
“They probably expected to be defending their country, and not expected to be sent on wars of conquest.”
SPOOKER4U (506.158, Apr-14 2:02 pm, in reply to 506.154):
“Being ex-military, don’t assume anything for those who served or are serving their country. They know exactly what is expected of them.”
HWOODCJ (506.204, Apr-14 2:44 pm, in reply to 506.158):
Who commands Ahmed Chalabi’s CIA army (FIF)?
We’ve seen pictures of US forces (DoD?, CIA?) recruiting ‘Free Iraqi Forces’ (FIF) to surround the CIA strongman Ahemd Chalabi in Nasiriyah, and giving them uniforms and IDs.
Who commands the strongman’s Black Shirt army? And, do “*they* know exactly what is expected of them”?
Though whatever they do is the responsibility of the United States as occupying power, under the puppet-government rule (derived from criminal trials following WW2):
The Law of Land Warfare {10.3mb.pdf/txt, source} (U.S. Army Field Manual, FM 27-10, July 18 1956, and amendment dated July 15 1976) {SuDoc: D 101.20:27-10, ditto, LCCN: 56062174, OCLC: 39027139, GPOCat, WorldCat}: Chapter 6: Occupation:
“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.”
“368. Nature of Government. It is immaterial whether the government over an enemy’s territory consists in a military or civil or mixed administration. Its character is the same and the source of its authority the same. It is a government imposed by force, and the legality of its acts is determined by the law of war.”
SPOOKER4U (506.211, Apr-14 3:00 pm, in reply to 506.204):
“What does this have to do with the idea of the US soldiers not knowing what they signed up for?
Also, please show me articles showing the new regime’s people.”
HWOODCJ (506.246, Apr-14 3:36 pm, in reply to 506.211):
SPOOKER4U: “Also, please show me articles showing the new regime’s people.”
Referring to my post (506.204) about Ahmed Chalibi’s CIA Black Shirt army, the Free Iraqi Forces (FIF), numbering 750 on Saturday April 12 2003.
I saw a TV report with pictures of the IDing activity on BBC News24 and there have been many radio and TV reports in Britain, in general, following the activities of Chalabi.
HWOODCJ (506.408, Apr-14 5:56 pm, in reply to 506.281):
CFRENSLEY (506.281, Apr-14 4:15 pm, in reply to 506.269): “Can you clarify for me what it is you intend with through the presentation of the information?”
I cited the ‘puppet-government’ rule (506.204) in connection with US (CIA?, DoD?) creation of an armed force (the FIF: Free Iraqi Forces) to surround their strongman Ahmed Chalabi, destined to become the head of the post-war interim government.
And I cited it to explain that the forthcoming violent crimes of Chalabi (as I imagine there will be, fronting for the CIA) are the legal responsibility of the United States (money damages), and the criminal responsibility of US military commanders who stand-by and allow Chalabi and his Black Shirts (as I label them) to do his dirty deeds.
We’ve already seen one political opponent of Chalabi murdered in Najaf upon his return from London (Shi’ite Imam Abdul Majid Al-Khoeli, April 11 2003), and we’ve seen a mob surround another of his political opponents, also in Najaf, and give him 48-hours to get out of town: a popular Shi’ite Imam (Grand Ayatollah Sayyed Ali al-Sistani, April 12, rescued April 14 2003). (A CIA ‘rent a mob’?)
In the past the CIA has always maintained a death-list of political opponents in its target countries and proceeded to murder them one by one in the aftermath of its engineered violent coups.
The United States practice in military occupations is to appoint a civilian government of locals, headed by an expatriate long resident in the US and on the CIA payroll, and then stand-by while the puppet-government murders its opponents, adopts fascist laws outlawing free speech and criticism of the puppet government, and sets about rigging elections.
This the US did during its military occupation of South Korea (1945-1950), when its puppet military dictator murdered 100,000 democratic activists prior to the Korean War and fictionalized his democratic credentials with bogus elections.
CFRENSLEY (506.413, Apr-14 6:00 pm, in reply to 506.408):
“I am still reading your post, but I note that you bring up the idea of a CIA death list for Chalabi and I just wanted to remind you that such a list has been presented by the CIA to a puppet dictator in Iraq before — for the purge of alleged communists by bloody murder. At least, if memory serves — perhaps it was Syria?”
HWOODCJ (506.492, Apr-14 9:52 pm, in reply to 506.211):
HWOODCJ (506.204, Apr-14 2:44 pm, in reply to 506.158): “Who commands Ahmed Chalabi’s CIA army (FIF)?”
SPOOKER4U (506.211, Apr-14 3:00 pm, in reply to 506.204): “What does this have to do with the idea of the US soldiers not knowing what they signed up for?”
It’s a contrast. Looking at some of those young Iraqi faces being vetted into the CIA’s FFI, digitally photoed, and logged into the database on the laptop computers of US forces (CIA?, DoD?) — I pity them.
They’re facing a truly historic moment with a lot of hope before them.
But, unknown to them, they’ve signed a pact with the Devil, to become the secret intelligence force for a new military dictator (Ahmed Chalabi) who takes orders from another military dictator (the CIA under license from the US Military), who takes orders from yet a third military dictator (G.W.Bush).
Just like Saddam’s secret intelligence forces, they will have to obey orders or lose their job, keep their mouth shut (don’t criticize any of the three military dictators), spy on their neighbors, arrest critics and opponents of the new regime, and slowly themselves become hated figures in their society, instead of part of a grand new adventure in government.
These young men don’t know what they are signing-up for. Pity.
UNCLESMRGOL (506.526, Apr-14 11:15 pm, in reply to 506.492):
“Or maybe they do, and it isn’t what you think.”
HWOODCJ (506.535, Apr-14 11:32 pm, in reply to 506.526):
Well, let’s hope so; hence, my initial question: Who commands Ahmed Chalabi’s CIA army (as I label it)?
Is their loyalty to him, or to Iraq? If his orders are unlawful, must they obey them? Or is there a higher authority which they can depend upon to protect them from a slide into a violent criminal enterprise to suppress dissent and quiet political opponents.
On the basis of history, in many countries under the dominion of the CIA, the answer to my question is loud and clear. Let’s hope it’s different this time. But I’m 100% sure it won’t be, not least due to the high stakes in play: Permanent US military presence in Iraq and a government which will do its bidding.
And, the low moral character of the players. A President who launches a war on the basis of a lie (about what France said) tells me all I need to know about what can, and can not, be depended upon.
GHADAHIJJAWI (506.581, Apr-15 12:45 am, in reply to 506.535):
HWOODCJ: “... a president who launches a war based on a lie ...”
“I am afraid it is much worse than that:
Ahmed Chalabi is an international criminal. And nobody in this forum seems to care that the ‘selected’ leader of this newly ‘liberated’ Iraq — err: ‘democracy’ — is a bank robber who has an international warrant of arrest awaiting him in Jordan (and probably other countries). Have we stooped or have we stooped? What kind of a shameless bunch of people who impose an out-law on a nation in the name of liberation and democracy?
We saw Chalabi’s handy work already: he got rid of his Shi’ite clergyman when it seemed that his position was being compromised by the row between the Pentagon and the White House.
So, yes, you do have every right to be concerned that the whole thing is going to repeat itself. Only this time, it is going to be much, much worse.
Some Iraqis were shouting on British TV two days ago saying we wish Saddam would come back for at least one day. This morning more Iraqis on British TV were saying Saddam would have never allowed the state of the hospitals to deteriorate that badly, he would never allow the looting that is taking place.
So even tyrants become popular when ‘liberators’ set their liberation in action !”
HWOODCJ (506.687, Apr-15 3:03 am, in reply to 506.581):
For the record, Chalabi’s PR man said that King Hussein of Jordan (a dead witness) apologized to Chalabi for the criminal proceedings against him in Jordan (for bank fraud), saying he was pressured into bringing them by Saddam. I don’t know the details of that affair. However, the criminal indictment originated in an European country (Switzerland?, Netherlands?), pertaining to looting of a branch bank.
I don’t know who is the Shi’ite clergyman you refer to. But, for the record, as far as I know, we don’t know who murdered the Iraqi expatiate moderate Shi’ite Imam, much loved and admired in London (Abdul Majid Al-Khoeli, murdered April 11 2003, in Najaf). Or, at least, in whose pay the murderer was (if anybody’s).
From:
To: HWOODCJ Apr-14 9:09 pm
Lindsay Howerton (WPFORUMS) (485 of 714)
Lindsay Howerton (WPFORUMS) (506.458, Apr-14 7:18 pm, in reply to 512.307):
“Personally, I think the only way I can be both a conservative and a liberal simultaneously is if I walk the Third Way. Now that’s the truth of my bent.”
HWOODCJ (506.485, Apr-14 9:09 pm, in reply to 506.458):
“You’re either with us, or against us”. There’s no third way. If you were living in South Vietnam during the days of our puppet military dictatorship there, you would find yourself in prison fast, for a statement like that. And that’s if you were lucky:
“To police the rural areas the CIA, along with teams from Michigan State University, created and trained the 50,000-man Civil Guard whose mission, according to CIA National Intelligence Estimate 63-56, was: “to maintain law and order, collect intelligence, and conduct counter-subversion operations at the provincial level in areas pacified by the army.”...
At the core of the intelligence/counter-subversion network was Diem’s dreaded Vietnamese Bureau of Investigation—a CIA-created security service.
The rural, predominantly Buddhist South Vietnamese resisted Diem’s unfair rule. The continual police operations to seek-out disloyalty to Diem caused more and more peasants to join communist organizations for their own survival.
Diem reacted to this perceived disloyalty by passing laws making it a crime to speak against the government or to spread rumors. Such crimes were punishable by death.
Bernard Fall, in his book Last Reflections on a War, observed:
“On May 6 1959, the Diem regime passed law 10/59 which provided for a system of drumhead courts capable of handing-out death sentences for even trivial offenses. Thus all South Vietnamese opposition—whether communist or not—had to become subversive, and did. ... 4 persons out of 5 became suspects and liable to be imprisoned if not executed.”
In reaction to Diem’s campaign of death against his own people, the southern branch of the communist party pressured North Vietnam into supporting their armed revolution. Contrary to the impression generated by Agency propaganda, the war at this stage was not an “invasion from the north” but a local resistance to the despotic Diem regime. Numerous authorities have commented on this subject and captured communist documents also reveal this to be true.”
Ralph W. McGehee Deadly Deceits: My 25 Years in the CIA, pp.134-135 (Sheridan Square Publications, New York City, 1983), quoting Bernard B. Fall (French journalist and historian, killed in Vietnam) Last Reflections on a War, pp.201-202 (Doubleday, Garden City New York, 1967), who quotes Jean Lacouture, possibly from: Philippe Devillers and Jean Lacouture End of a War: Indochina, 1954 (Frederick A. Praeger, New York City, 1969).
From:
To: HWOODCJ Apr-15 8:29 pm
NUFFSENUFF (512 of 699)
NUFFSENUFF to Lindsay Howerton (WPFORUMS) (512.158, Apr-15 11:49 am, in reply to 512.155):
“All this proves is that these people had 35 years of pent up aggression against everything that they saw as being Saddam Hussein’s government. Was this a cultural disaster? Probably. Should it have been a priority of the Coalition forces to protect it? No. We’re not there to be a bunch of babysitters. There’s a war going on.”
HWOODCJ (512.493, Apr-15 8:29 pm, in reply to 512.158):
“War” includes both fighting and policing, in equal measure. Policing is not babysitting; it’s a legal obligation of the laws of war. And I’m referring to looting and wanton destruction in Baghdad by opportunist and criminal elements among the unpoliced population.
And the violent criminals responsible for the US war-plan owe the world in general, and their fellow citizens in particular, a long stretch in Club Fed as punishment for themselves, and as a salutary warning to their successors.
Not least for their many statements inciting the local population to loot, constituting implied orders, as well, to their own forces to not intervene. But more directly for their failure to provide policing troops (occupation forces) to follow their fighting forces (the expeditionary forces) into Baghdad, and to postpone enlargement of the war by diverting fighting forces in reserve (eg: the 101st Airborne) to Baghdad for policing. These forces should have been waiting at the airport, which the US secured prior to their assault on Baghdad.
The failures of Rumsfeld Franks & Co quickly advanced from reckless negligence in the planning of the war to a willful violation of the laws of war: a war-crime.
Of course, had their commander-in-chief not launched the war in the first place — on the basis of his lie about what France said — policing would have been arranged by the UN Security Council as part of an eventual war resolution (had inspections reached impasse), and the Arab nations would likely have supplied an Arabic-speaking police force to follow the Marines into Baghdad.
Then again, there never would have been a war had Bush allowed the inspections to continue. Lying was the only way Bush could get his war.
Thanks to their negligent, reckless, and criminal officials, US taxpayers are now responsible to pay for all this damage, destruction, and looting. And even were a jury to acquit them of war-crimes, the United States is nevertheless liable to pay the damages.
But happily — precisely because their officials are negligent, reckless, and criminal — US taxpayers will never have to pay for this directly, because their nation is a rogue state which refuses to be held to account peaceably under the rule of law in a courtroom. Instead, they will pay indirectly, by funding their Homeland Security Fortress and paying for occasional collapsing skyscrapers.
_______
Hague-4/1907 {source, copy} (October 18 1907, ratified by the US/UK): http://www.yale.edu/ lawweb/ avalon/ lawofwar/ hague04.htm:
Art. 3. A belligerent party which violates the provisions of the said Regulations shall, if the case demands, be liable to pay compensation. It shall be responsible for all acts committed by persons forming part of its armed forces.
_______
Hague-4, Annex (Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land):
Art. 23. In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden ...
(g) To destroy or seize the enemy’s property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war ...
Art. 28. The pillage of a town or place, even when taken by assault, is prohibited.
Art. 42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
Art. 43. 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.
Art. 46. Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected. Private property cannot be confiscated.
Art. 47. Pillage is formally forbidden.
_______
Geneva-4 {copy, copy} {status: 183kb.pdf}: Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Geneva, August 12 1949, October 21 1950), 75 U.N.T.S. 287 {U.N. Doc.: ST/LEG(05)/U5, ISSN: 0379-8267, LCCN: 48022417, WorldCat}, U.S. ratified Aug. 2 1955, effective Feb. 2 1956, 213 U.N.T.S. 384.
Art. 16. ... As far as military considerations allow, each Party to the conflict shall facilitate the steps taken to assist ... persons exposed to grave danger, and to protect them against pillage and ill-treatment.
Art. 18. Civilian hospitals ... shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict.
Art. 27. Protected persons ... shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity.
Art. 53. Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.
Art. 56. To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the public Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring and maintaining, with the cooperation of national and local authorities, the medical and hospital establishments and services, public health and hygiene in the occupied territory ... Medical personnel of all categories shall be allowed to carry out their duties.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm,
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/ lawofwar/ geneva07.htm
_______
War crime provisions in a following post
HWOODCJ (512.498, Apr-15 8:41 pm, in reply to 512.158):
Concluding reply to NUFFSENUFF: War crime provisions:
_______
Geneva-4 [cited above]:
Art. 147. Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the present Convention: ... extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.
_______
The Law of Land Warfare {10.3mb.pdf/txt, source} (U.S. Army Field Manual, FM 27-10, July 18 1956, and amendment dated July 15 1976) {SuDoc: D 101.20:27-10, ditto, LCCN: 56062174, OCLC: 39027139, GPOCat, WorldCat}: Chapter 8: “Remedies for Violation of International Law”:
“499. War Crimes. The term “war crime” is the technical expression for a violation of the law of war by any person or persons, military or civilian. Every violation of the law of war is a war crime.”
_______
18 U.S.C. § 2441.
Sec. 2441. — War crimes
(a) Offense. — Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.
(b) Circumstances. — The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).
(c) Definition. — As used in this section the term ”war crime” means any conduct —
(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907; ...
HERMES55 (512.505, Apr-15 9:05 pm, in reply to 512.493):
“It is truly tragic that all those priceless objects from the cradle of western civilization (Mesopotamia) have been looted from the Baghdad museum and that the extent of their loss is being dismissed/ignored by so many in such a cavalier fashion ...
Any talk of Bush being punished as a war criminal is moot. The USA has the distinction of being the only nation on earth to be convicted as a terrorist state by the International Court of Justice (in 1986 for mining Managua’s harbor in Nicaragua; our effort then to liberate Nicaragua) but Reagan just summarily dismissed that judgment which was, of course, unenforceable
Now, if it had been Assad who had been convicted then, today we would be ... (3 guesses).”
HWOODCJ (512.510, Apr-15 9:26 pm, in reply to 512.505):
Today (April 15 2003) the National Museum was still being looted when Channel 4 TV (Britain) arrived with the sobbing curator, and not a single US soldier or Abrams or Bradley to be seen. This, a week or so after the first reports of looting.
But you omitted to mention the burning of the National Archives and the burning of the separate National Library, which the US likewise lifted not a finger to protect.
However, this is an excellent strategy. One which Pol Pot appreciated: Year Zero: By exterminating a nation’s 5,000 year history, they can now turn their minds away from their distracting heritage (now, thankfully, merely a fading memory of the older people) and look forward to a new future, without all that irrelevant historical memory.
I believe we could likewise benefit from this US Military solution and burn all records of US slavery and destroy all artifacts of it, cleanse all our textbooks and libraries of any mention of it. These relicts of our past have no beneficial contribution to our future and cause nothing but strife. Agreed?
Better yet, let’s go the whole 9-yards (as we’ve done in Baghdad) and burn the Library of Congress and National Archives and Federal Records Center (a lot old books and documents nobody ever reads anyway) and the Smithsonian Institute (a lot of old relicts from the past that have nothing to do with anything and just take up space).
HERMES55 (512.522, Apr-15 11:25 pm, in reply to 512.510):
“I do not think that we will destroy important historical records of our own, fairly brief, heritage here in the US (however unsavory) because I believe that there are wonderful, dedicated people here who will fight any attempts at vandalism to preserve these national treasures for posterity.
However, the loss of those priceless archeological gems at the National Museum as well as the irreplaceable records that you mentioned in your post at the National Archives and Library in Baghdad going back all those millennia is truly tragic - and even if perhaps not on the same scale, akin to the destruction of the library in Alexandria.
It is really unconscionable that no effort was made to stop the rampage. What an incredible waste. We are all so much the poorer for this senseless destruction. ”
LURCH194 (512.501, Apr-15 8:56 pm, in reply to 512.493):
HWOODCJ: “But happily — precisely because their officials are negligent, reckless, and criminal — US taxpayers will never have to pay for this directly, because their nation is a rogue state which refuses to be held to account peaceably under the rule of law in a courtroom. Instead, they will pay indirectly, by funding their Homeland Security Fortress and paying for occasional collapsing skyscrapers.”
“I don’t know. I think we will pay, and out the nose. Those corporations signing contracts in Washington are signing them with the US government. Most of that money will never leave the US, of course: it will simply be transferred from the treasury to the coffers of these corporations. It’s a great country, isn’t it?”
HWOODCJ (512.517, Apr-15 9:49 pm, in reply to 512.501):
On the contrary: The USA is *also* now the government of Iraq. And its new military dictator (G.W.Bush) is legally entitled to spend Iraq’s oil revenues as he sees fit.
Naturally, all development contracts for Iraq are payable from those revenues. So too, all US occupation costs (a shift of part of our military budget off US taxpayers and onto Iraq’s oil revenues).
While Iraq’s oil revenues are depressed now, their 11% of the world’s oil reserves are largely untapped. But, being shallow fields, Bush’s Texas buddies can punch a lot of new wells fast and boost our inhalation of Iraq’s wealth.
We stand to get a big financial payoff. How do you suppose Bush expects to finance his $550 billion tax cut he insists on? And, his $380 billion budget deficit (not counting the tax cut).
And don’t forget US taxes on the profits all those Texans are expecting. You won’t find out about the secret profits (from private ventures set-up to receive contracts from Big Daddy Bush), but the public companies will have to disclose their take in their financial reports to the SEC.
You’re too pessimistic. Bush is a genius. A criminal genius, but at least we’re all accomplices with him. We get our pay-off too. Cheer up !
LURCH194 (512.561, Apr-16 12:56 am, in reply to 512.517):
HWOODCJ: “We get our pay-off too. Cheer up !”
“I can’t argue with your analysis (which is in general some of the best on here), but I don’t see “us” getting much of a payoff. I see social services getting cut further as the US gets further militarized.
FYI, I live in Guatemala, which along with the other Central American countries, is about to get the Central America Free Trade Agreement rammed down its throat (or perhaps its better to say, up another orifice). Things don’t look to bright around here.”
PAHUNTER1 to VESPAPK50 (512.432, Apr-15 5:46 pm, in reply to 512.427):
“We are staying from the subject, but who do you think were flying the MIGs in the Korean War? Stalin did encourage the North Korean leader to attack the South thinking that the US would not want to fight for an insignificant nation in Asia. He was wrong. Stalin was also paranoid to the extreme.”
HWOODCJ (512.550, Apr-16 12:42 am, in reply to 512.432):
Who refused to hold a reunification election in Korea, promised for 1948, during his military occupation of South Korea (1945-1950)? Stalin or Truman? Who refused to hold a reunification election in Vietnam in 1956, promised in 1954 (in Geneva), during his puppet military dictatorship of South Vietnam? Ho Chi Minh or Eisenhower? And why? Here’s a hint:
“I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people.”
Henry A. Kissinger (Chairman of the National Security Council’s 40-committee, overseeing the CIA’s covert-operations), statement on June 27 1970 in a secret committee meeting, referring to Chile prior to Allende’s election later that year, quoted by Victor Marchetti and John D. Marks The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence, p.12 (Laurel/Dell Publishing, New York City, 1974, 1980 edition). Kissinger expressed the consistent US foreign policy since 1944, much of which he participated in implementing (1950-1977).
From:
To: HWOODCJ Apr-16 2:46 am
ARTYCHOKE1 (670 of 699)
ARTYCHOKE1 (512.539, Apr-16 12:25 am, in reply to 512.449):
“I think that the BBC and Al Jazeera provide good, fairly neutral information from outside the American sphere of influence.”
HWOODCJ (512.564, Apr-16 12:58 am, in reply to 512.539):
The BBC “outside the American sphere of influence”?
Guess who partners with the CIA in its Foreign Broadcast Information Service (propaganda for US Government employees and the media)? Here’s a hint:
“BBC Monitoring collaborates closely with the FBIS (Foreign Broadcast Information Service) of the USA in an agreed division of monitoring effort and exchange of monitored material to achieve comprehensive and systematic global coverage in the most efficient way possible. ...
BBC Monitoring’s Vision is to be the best source of information on what the media across the world are reporting to aid the understanding of world events. In particular, we aim to be an indispensable information provider to the UK and US Governments and to the BBC.”
http://www.monitor.bbc.co.uk/ aboutus_corp_ plan2002_ overview.shtml (BBC Monitoring, Caversham).
BBC Monitoring is part of MI6 (British Intelligence). While they report faithfully in secret to their masters (as I presume), the CIA/MI6 lie to the public by their selection and suppression of foreign media reports in their (expensive) public subscription editions; and they publish stories planted by the CIA in foreign media and CIA rebel radio station broadcasts and CIA broadcasts in leased time on foreign stations masquerading as legitimate news and analysis.
The BBC World Service is funded secretly via the British Defense Budget and not readily available inside Britain. Its big influence is in its foreign language broadcasts (which I’ve never studied, but appear to be admired).
The domestic BBC (inside Britain) is funded by its audience, but it’s board of management is appointed and serves at the pleasure of the Government of the day.
But, on *this* war, the BBC domestic service has been *brilliantly* objective (unlike previous wars), especially Radio5Live and particularly its UpAllNight segment (1am-5am British Time), and especially particularly when hosted by its creator Rhod Sharp (currently Monday-Wednesday), available on the internet: http://www. bbc.co.uk/ fivelive/upallnight/
ARTYCHOKE1 (512.571, Apr-16 1:04 am, in reply to 512.564):
“My humblest apologies, I will eat my hat.”
HWOODCJ (512.670, Apr-16 2:46 am, in reply to 512.571):
You don’t have to eat your hat. The BBC domestic service is truly excellent on this war, very thorough on all issues, as you recommended. (And I imagine the World Service too, to a lesser extent, though I don’t listen to it).
The BBC Monitoring/CIA FBIS partnership (which I described) is a specialized expensive subscription service whose audience is 98% inside their own governments (free subscriptions), the rest being the media (expensive subscriptions) and academics (free or discounted subscriptions). And its subject matter is only the selective content of foreign press/media.
So this partnership has little connection with the day-to-day output of the ‘real’ BBC, though it remains influential (as I suppose) with its target audience: influential minds inside the government, especially the military, Congress, and diplomats — to persuade them of certain foreign ‘facts’ and opinion, and the absence of certain foreign facts and opinion (eg: violent atrocities of the Contras).
As for the rest of the media and academics (former target audiences), this influence is minimal today (as I suppose), now that foreign media is available on the internet. But caveat more obscure (to English speakers) foreign media without English translations on the internet: Arabic, Chinese, Korean, and such.
However, I’ve now made myself curious: Given G.W.Bush’s truly audacious lie (March 17 and the previous week) about what France said — the pretext for this war (that France said it would veto *any* war resolution) — I wonder how FBIS reported Jacques Chirac’s French TV interview (March 10), and whether FBIS falsified what he said (eg: by omitting parts of it). Ditto his March 16 CNN/CBS interview.
If anybody has FBIS for that week, I’d be glad if they would post the full text of what FBIS printed. This could explain Bush’s confidence in deciding to lie.
The CIA/FBIS’s usual routine, in a case like this, would be to find a publication reporting the interview (instead of the interview itself) where Chirac is made to appear to have said what Bush said he said. Typically, an article the CIA itself wrote and published in a foreign press via its operative/reporter in that press.
day 22