Only Losers Get Tried for War Crimes (CounterPunch) The Ottaway/Stephens article, incidentally, can be found at the Orlando Sentinel website. So why are losers the only ones eligible for war crimes? This is a question I've addressed before when demanding that Rumsfeld stand among the accused in the Iraqi regime. This particular article makes a more poignant case regarding war crimes in general. Even in elementary school we heard tales of scalping Indian tribes in America, but it was only through "subversive" sources that young people discovered that the truth of history includes Columbus' evils against the indigenous American population, and if it wasn't for mention in a Judy Blume kids' novel, I wouldn't have known the names of several conquistadores, including Cabeza de Vaca, whose La Relacion seems largely ignored in both concept and practice in the teaching of history. Anarchists were referred to in evil contexts until I happened across a leftist college professor who made the Anarchism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries a cornerstone of his class. "Sympathy for the terrorists?" Hardly, but as children, many of my generation were raised to accept the "realities" of war. We were taught that My Lai was an unfortunate result of necessity, and that Hiroshima and Nagasaki "saved lives". American public curriculum ignores Dresden and other firestorms altogether; I was 18 and enthralled with Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. when I got my first taste of what actually happened at Dresden. The electronic age, the age of the Information Superhighway, will complicate this in the future. It will be harder to keep these chapters of history from the "fragile" minds we spend so much effort and money to twist into form. But as it is, I think of my generation who was taught the sad necessity of civilian death, and it's hard to not see an aspect of sad necessity in what happened on September 11, 2001. Nothing will ever make it right, but for heaven's sake, who, really, was stupid enough to be surprised? My first reaction to the pictures of the WTC in flames was, "Well, somebody finally went and did it." As a result, I've found most of the war on terror to be macabre overkill. And as we've seen, the WoT has been somewhat disgraceful, with thousands of prisoners denied their constitutional rights by the Justice Department, with new designations designed to circumvent humanitarian agreements (e.g. Geneva Conventions & "unlawful combatants"), and a host of overblown reactions to Saddam Hussein's regime that have little, if anything, to do with the Iraqi people. We're furious with Hussein for every little thing he does, obsessing even over the things the United States and its partners willingly do. So they showed the POW's on TV; yes, it's a violation of the Geneva Conventions, but it's only a twist of rhetoric that allows us to show X-Ray prisoners on television. Americans were furious about the deaths of several soldiers who have been recovered alive; why are we manufacturing horror stories? Are the real ones not enough? In the end, it comes down to a lack of trust. The administration does not trust the American people. Consider the proposition: The Iraqi Bush War, despite international opposition, is justified because it is the right thing to do and seeks the right outcome for the Iraqi people. Now, if this was true, what would be the "risk" of showing the nasty pictures on television? If we're right, then the cost is worth it, and American resolve will not falter, and America will not fail. Yet at every turn, the administration sought to make epic propaganda out of this war. And despite the embedded reporters, despite the "dignity" of American coverage, and despite the rabid and patriotic blindness shown by Americans toward reality, ABC News ran a poll a couple of days before Baghdad fell showing that 73% of Americans supported the war. In fact, ABC polls suggested that, while people changed their opinion of the potential duration and human cost of the war, support before the war increased almost negligibly after the war started. In fact, those numbers suggest that the number of people whose sentiment described some variation of, "Well, the war's officially afoot, so I might as well support it" at some 1%. (A shift from pre-war approval of 72% to 73%.) So if support was so strong, and we the People of the United States so right and correct in our vision, what was with the propaganda? Quite simply, the administration does not trust the American people. And among that blanching of the war is the human toll. We know civilians die, but this war will forever be stained by the volunteer soldier from the US who was quoted as having to shoot an Iraqi civilian mother to death because "The chick was just in the way." There are many war crimes to be considered; the Geneva Conventions prescribe caution in the face of the confusion our soldiers faced vis a vis Iraqi fighters in civilian dress. We sacked the Conventions. The Conventions prescribe the necessity of law and order maintained by an occupying army; the Conventions were sacked in favor of a PR stance that only cheered up Americans. Civilians and diplomats seemingly intentionally targeted, though it is acknowledged that Americans were so bad at their jobs they couldn't tell their enemies from their allies; not only did our low-flying Warthog pilots take out British vehicles and soldiers, but it got some of them on the second pass. This really is about the oil fields, and as the reports of American mistakes surface, I expect Americans to be held accountable for their crimes against humanity, starting with Rumsfeld, including Bush, and working our way down from there. Of course, I live in a country where "law and order" videotaped abusing citizens, is acceptable. If we're shooting at Iraqi civilians, Americans are not generally inclined to care. Welcome to the new war, where rules are generally too inconvenient to follow if you don't expect to have to be held accountable. And history suggests that American war criminals will walk away unscathed. :m:, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Tiassa, Lovely post, really is. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The problem with most war crimes is that we don't know about them until years later. I point to Dresden, Germany in this case. Fire bombing german citizens? That's bad, but people didn't know about it until later. (Or until books like "Slaughter House-5" come out) The truth of it all is, and this does suck, is that the winners never have to face their crimes. Because they are just that; winners. It's the system, and I totally agree with you Tiassa.
Add Belgium to the list Belgium seems to agree (of a sort) with the 7-1 vote presently standing in the poll. US anger at war crimes threat (BBC) I can't say that we in the US give much credibility to the court in Belgium, but some odd sensitivity has set off the administration. Perhaps the awareness that some in the world do, in fact, give credibility to the court, and, furthermore, the awareness that indictments in Belgium could spark indictments in courts the US has more reasons to pay attention to. This will be an interesting story to watch develop. I know that there were reports of a 36-hour seige by Iraqi looters against a mental hospital in which 4 patients were raped, and two died from thirst for lack of medical attention. That was not in Baghdad, though, so my benchmark case has not yet developed, either as a finalized story or an indictment. I will not, however, tolerate the stringing of General Franks on petty issues; if we're going for war crimes, make it a good case on solid issues and be ready to climb the ladder after Rumsfeld, and eventually Bush. "I was just following orders," is not an excuse. But General Franks, as the "messenger", is the one I'd go lightest on for general failures to adhere to the Geneva Conventions, unless of course it's shown that he ordered some hideous slaughters ... er ... well, we haven't seen the Iraqi My Lai yet, so ... yeah. :m:, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Tiassa, For the curious, here are the weblogs of the four belgian doctors on whose testimony the case is being based. Some of the charges are things like marked civilian ambulances being shot up by Marines, hospitals being bombed, residential areas around Hilla and Baghdad being bombed and so on. So they're not trivial charges. Whether or not the case will make any difference, that's another story.
Thank you ... Thank you very much. Unfortunately, it looks like a depressing lot of reading. But it is much appreciated. :m:, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
There is no right or wrong and there’s no good or evil. There’s just winners and losers. I mean how many of you believe that the state of the world today is based on the “good guy” having won every past war? Things happened just as they did. “right” and “good” have been re-defined to conform to the winning party. In a parallel universe the world is a better place (“better” defined as less human death and misery). I’d bet that the U.S.A is not a world superpower in that universe.
dsdsds, First, go tell Bush ("Axis of Evil" spark memories?). Second, shooting a marked civilian ambulance isn't so much a question of right/wrong or good/evil (since it happened during war), but it is illegal under the Geneva convention. So don't worry about right/wrong or good/evil if you please - worry instead about legal/illegal.
Of course, this will never come to be... in fact, Bush fought very hard to thwart the creation of the International Criminal Court and failing that, tried to have Americans exempt from prosecution by it. Why is the administration so afraid of Americans potentially being tried for international war crimes? Is it something that we should just be able to get away with? http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...ode=&contentId=A12630-2003Mar11¬Found=true
Well ... Thanks for the article, Kami, and no, we haven't figured out what Bush is up to aside from admitting that conventional warfare is inconvenient to him. Clinton signed on to the ICC, admitting at the time that he was uncomfortable with it, but he had the right idea: If a body is going to establish a new standard of justice that it will expect you to respect, it's probably worthwhile to make sure you have your say in what exactly that standard says. Bush didn't even want that. It's one of the reasons so many people are waiting to see if Americans are held accountable, and some will be willing to hold them to the slightest mistake. Remember, the US government finally busted Al Capone on tax evasion charges. Like I said, if it's a substantial charge, let's bring it to trial, but if it's a petty issue, consider whether or not it would have been addressed had it been anyone else. It's true that, given the state of the world, several days of chaos in Iraq just doesn't seem like much, but it is in its own right a "test case". The US has to test the world and see just how much it can get away with before deciding how to stage its next war. :m:, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Who is the jury? THe UN? I dont exactly trust most of them to be unbaist. It depends on what the possible war crime is as well but the big thing is do I think the prosecuted are going to get the stick. I abstain from voting in this poll.
The fact that the winners get to decide who gets tried for war crimes underscores the fact that there really is no such thing as "international law," rather it's international force, and sometimes diplomacy, that accomplishes anything in this realm.
Might is right? So if I want something, AlanH, I should just beat someone up and take it? I understand that I'm absolutely sinister and insane, but I always wonder why the decency and respect and peace I show my immediate neighbor isn't good enough. Apparently I need to be even more saintly and beat his children every time he pisses me off. That is, essentially, what I don't understand about the idea that Might is Right. It really does seem a pseudo-intellectual justification for stupidity or sloth. :m:, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Tiassa, I don't necessarily think alan was defending 'might makes right', but rather was stating a reality. Just like federal, state, and municipal laws, international law is only effective if it can be enforced. There is no international police force, short of an occasional neutered peacekeeping force, for an international body to back its laws. How can the UN enforce its laws on a superpower if the superpower refuses to allow it?
I'm actually aware of that, Coldrake The underlying reality is a fiction, though. Might is Right is a mere presumption of the stupid and lazy, and I'll take any platform I can get to go straight after the idea's throat. :m:, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Re: Might is right? Okay Tiassa, uhm... who establishes what is and isn't punishable? Governments right? City, County, State, Feds, blah.... there is a top to that chain of power right? Who tells that power how to behave? The nation? What if what the nation demands is in violation of international law? Who give any authority to international law? Blah, I'm meandering. What I'm getting at is that regardless of how we'd like things to be, at the top there's just guys making judgment calls. Each nation jockeys for its share of resources and each will stoop to the level of the lowest jerk who actually has any kind of power. Sometimes that ends up being a war. So unfortunately and somewhat disgustingly might IS right. Simply put: There are a whole bunch of different "rights". I think a bunch of things are "right" that you would likely despise. We both probably think a bunch of things are "right" that a random citizen of Iraq would think is a bunch of bullshit. It's somewhat cultural and somewhat "how that culture got twisted in your particular mind". Thusly, since there exists more than one condition that is considered "right" (although it is by differnt individuals)..; power is all that is left to settle disputes. Might is the right that makes other rights wrong eh? *shrug* (I thought it was going to be simple, pardon) Because of the subjective nature of consciousness. I think you do, but it pisses you off so you pretend you don't... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Nah man, it's that I'm not you. You're not me, we aren't they. That wouldn't be that big of a deal if it weren't for the fact that people are willing to kill you or you may be willing to kill someone based on what you think is "right" or "wrong". The real bitch is when I kill someone for a "just" reason that you don't think is just eh?
Re: I'm actually aware of that, Coldrake So you think Sciforums is an effective platform? This board is entertaining and all that, but I don't think it's exactly the cutting edge of reform.
Quiz Time (for lack of a better title) Mildly sarcastic note, but with a genuinely warm smile: In retrospect, I hope I passed the Essay portion. Quiz Time? - Okay Tiassa, uhm... who establishes what is and isn't punishable? At the most basic level, the people. - Governments right? City, County, State, Feds, blah.... Governments are expressions of the people. Counterpoint: Do governments exist for the benefit of the people, or do the people exist for the benefit of government? - there is a top to that chain of power right? Generally speaking, yes. - Who tells that power how to behave? The nation? Let me know if I've paired those wrong. The people tell the power how to behave. - What if what the nation demands is in violation of international law? Then those responsible are criminals. - Who give any authority to international law? The people. In the United States, for instance, the Supreme Law of the Land is the Constitutions. But we occasionally have odd fights with the international community, such as when the UN tried to set a biodiversity zone around Mount Rainier that was larger than the national forest the US had already set aside. The US may have sold its soul to the UN, but the Clinton administration would be damned before they let the UN displace Americans from as many as 1,500 homes for a biodiversity zone. Doesn't matter. We shouldn't have signed that authority to the UN. And if those people are stupid or criminal, they ought to be thrown out of their offices. Jesus, for all the shit people gave Clinton for a blowjob, you'd think that the kind of dishonesty that costs lives would be a little more important to my righteous and upstanding American neighbors. Fine with me. Let's just stop pretending we're being decent when we're not. See, part of it is that people are just that stupid. Leaders and their agents say its noble, so people believe it's noble even though it doesn't jibe with what they say they believe the other six days of the week. We do not afford that philosophy any credibility in our dealings with our fellow Americans; I do not kill my neighbor because the exhaust from his truck (a harmful chemical agent) tumbles into my yard. This simple decency is good enough for my fellow American, it seems. In fact, it seems expected of Americans. However, we cannot afford it outside our borders. Even if I cast the generalization that noble America must lead the world to freedom, the one thing it's teaching the whole damn world is that the only way to be free is to beat up everyone who disagrees with you. And that's just not decent. Do I have the "right" to rape your sister just because I'm physically capable? As to the rest of that question, you're also forgetting the simpleton's definition: "Might is right, as in evidence of correctness." I agree with you that people are so stupid that violence is about all they have to settle disputes at the barest level, but that's the problem. They do so because they have no other tools at their disposal, and among the "right" presumptions that they maintain is that there are no other tools. Simpletons, indeed. Warfare is an admission of failure. How can we be right if we've failed? Oh, I forgot--we're less wrong than the next country, so that makes us right. That's also a great excuse for racism. Functionally speaking, that is. Honestly? I don't like to think that poorly of people. So I simply presume that there's something I'm missing; unfortunately, while many people agree, not a single one of them are capable of telling me what that something is. I'm supposed to believe that "we" are "right" or that "we" have "the right" the same way someone might expect me to believe that Jesus Christ can save my soul and redeem me in heaven. I wish that sufficed. But you know how, in economic debates, a conservative is prone to say, "I worked for my money, why can't they?" Well, you know ... I worked hard to learn to perceive reality. Why should I respect the lazy? For you and me, we speak of the ... how did you put it ... ah, here it is: So unfortunately and somewhat disgustingly might IS right. Why do you say unfortunately and disgustingly? What is it that you have in your pantheon of ideas that makes you say unfortunately and disgustingly? What is it that you've done or seen or understood that brings you to that point that someone else must have missed? It's not like you're asking anyone to go get a PhD in international affairs with a master's minor in philosophy. Why do other people celebrate what you've come to recognize as an unpalatable aspect of reality? And you can let that part stand rhetorically, if you want. It would be difficult for me to answer those questions directly with any respect for economy of words. We're human beings. This boat sails a lot better when everyone's on board and everyone has a bit of an idea what we're doing. It's a matter of education. And that's actually a great metaphor. Some of us are grinding sheets to get the sails trimmed so the boat can make progress. But the majority just want to play with the shiny handles and winches and the nifty ropes with their cute patterns of colored dots because they want to look as cool as they think the sailors themselves do. Put a child in the cockpit of a 47-foot yacht and tell him to point a heading. Even I remember how boring that was at first; I wanted to spin the big wooden wheel like helmsmen in cartoons. But now I understand why for all those years my father preferred a direct-connected tiller and rudder. It's a lot easier to keep a point when you can feel the water talking back. All I'm asking is for the idiots around the deck to stop playing randomly with everything and learn what it does. Every winch they crank, every cleat they untie, every line they tug ... yes, flying on a loose spinnaker looks fun, but you can seriously die crashing into the deck ... it's best to come down in the water, of all places, and why would anyone ...--it's beside the point. If the clowns would just learn what they're doing to the boat, they'd probably find they had more fun actually knowing what they're doing. And since they can kill me with their clowning around (ever caught the boom in the back of the head?) I think I have the right to at least ask. A ship of fools it may be, but "as we sail along, I never fail to be astounded by the things we'll do for promises, and a song". But seriously ... after you've had one in the back of the skull, you tend to be ahead of the random jibes. Of course, if you sail with smarter skippers, such hitches in your day come up significantly less often. In later years, I must admit, my father simply doesn't get caught off-guard like that. But he did that day. And phack! did that hurt. Of course, I'm told it could have been worse. We had a shorter (and therefore lighter) wooden boom on the ketch than we would have had on a sloop. I try not to imagine. Even though they're heavier than their aluminum or graphite brethren, to this day my head appreciates the impact of wood far more. Wood booms give just a little if, like me, you're lucky enough to catch no metal rigging directly in the impact. I include this minutiae because, hopefully, you'll understand why I like the metaphor. :m:, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
We are being asked if we were telling the truth and we won... does that count? Actually a lot of idiots just figure everything we say is a lie and decide the opposite is true. An american says he is donating to an orphanage some will decide he must be eating babies.
