US committed no war crimes in Iraq

[hack89]

Source: Radio Netherlands Worldwide

Nothing the US did in Iraq could ever constitute a war crime that could be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court. This is the view of Richard Goldstone a former chief international war crimes prosecutor and international law expert.

"I don't believe that any allegation that I have read or heard against the United States leaders comes anywhere near the sorts of crimes that the ICC has been set up to investigate. Genocide, crimes against humanity, serious war crimes - it just doesn't measure up."

Richard Goldstone - chief prosecutor at the war crimes tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda from 1994-1996 and currently head of a UN fact-finding team on international law violations - made his remarks during a Radio Netherlands Worldwide debate in The Hague.
Asked by a member of the audience if former President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, could ever see themselves on trial at the International Criminal Court for their role in the US-led invasion of Iraq - Judge Goldstone was unequivocal in his answer.

"Let me say I don't believe, while there are allegations of torture - and errors made in bombing of Kosovo during the Clinton administration - or some civilians being killed in Iraq or Afghanistan, I don't believe that any allegation that I have read or heard against the United States leaders comes anywhere near the sorts of crimes that the ICC has been set up to investigate. Genocide, crimes against humanity, serious war crimes - it just doesn't measure up, that's point one. I don't think it's a fair comparison."

Read more: http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/us-committed-no-war-crimes-iraq

---

Wow - didn't see this coming.

Here is some background on Richard Goldstone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Goldstone

[Horse with no Name]

1. So who did Cheney kidnap or threaten to shoot? Pay off?

Because this is pure bullshit.

[saigon68]

45. Obviously this is just playground scuffling GRAPHIC PHOTO

This one and so many like it.


YIKES

How about indiscriminately BOMBING THE SHIT out of these people?

Unfortunately this Turd has never heard of Guernica

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guernica_(painting)

[daleo]

2. How about "waging aggressive, unprovoked war"

I seem to recall that being considered the mother of all war crimes.

[hack89]

4. I am not a lawyer

but this article implies that it is not clear cut or easy to prove.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression

[daleo]

13. I think the Iran invasion is pretty clear cut

But I am all for having a trial. Even neo-con war mongers deserve that.

[muriel_volestrangler]

51. But the ICC does not yet have the agreement to try for Crimes of Aggression

The International Criminal Court and the Crime of Aggression

September 26-27, 2008

Sixty years ago, the Nuremberg Tribunal convicted the Nazi leaders of waging a war of aggression, prompting Nuremberg Prosecutor Robert Jackson to declare that this was the most important contribution of the Nuremberg Tribunal. Until the advent of the International Criminal Court, however, none of the modern international tribunals had been given jurisdiction over the crime of aggression. But the ICC Statute stipulates that before the Court can exercise jurisdiction over this crime the States Parties must adopt a provision at the Review Conference (scheduled for 2010) setting forth a definition of aggression and the— conditions under which the Court could exercise its jurisdiction over it. The ICC Assembly of State Parties has set up a Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression, whose work is in progress, but the United States has refused to participate in the proceedings.

http://www.case.edu/orgs/jil/symposium_aggression.html

There is support for the inclusion of the crime of aggression in the Court's jurisdiction, and there is opposition. Part of the debate centers on finding an acceptable definition of the crime of aggression. While arguments to include aggression centre on its extreme gravity and international repercussions, arguments against its inclusion centre on the lack of a sufficiently precise definition. Another part of the debate focused on the role of the Security Council in this regard. Pursuant to Article 39 of the UN Charter, the Security Council "shall determine" the existence of an "act of aggression". Consequently, the issue is inseparably linked to the role of the Security Council in the maintenance of international peace and security. It has been a difficult task to find an acceptable way to reflect in a balanced manner the responsibility of the Security Council, on the one hand, and the judicial independence of the Court, on the other.

The Nürnberg Tribunal condemned a war of aggression in the strongest terms: "To initiate a war of aggression . . . is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." It held individuals accountable for "crimes against peace", defined as the "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing...." When the United Nations General Assembly unanimously affirmed the Nürnberg principles in 1946, it affirmed the principle of individual accountability for such crimes.

Early efforts in the United Nations to create an international criminal court were set aside while the international community set out to define aggression. In 1974, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a definition of aggression. It defined aggression as necessarily being the act of a State, and described the specific actions of one State against another which constitute aggression. In its work on the draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, the United Nations International Law Commission, echoing the Nürnberg Tribunal, also concluded that individuals could be held accountable for acts of aggression. The Commission indicated the specific conduct for which individuals could be held accountable -- initiating, planning, preparing or waging aggression -- and that only those individuals in positions of leadership who order or actively participate in the acts could incur responsibility. Its definition focused on individual accountability rather than on the rule of international law which prohibits aggression by a State.

The difficulty, according to some, lies in framing a workable definition of aggression which would apply to a wide range of situations. The definition must be precise enough for individuals to know what acts are prohibited; and it must be general enough to cover a wide variety of acts which may occur in the future, and which may not yet have been conceived of. It must also describe the magnitude of the violation of the prohibition of the use of force contained in Article 2 of the UN Charter that would constitute the crime of aggression for which individuals may be held responsible and punished.
...
http://www.un.org/icc/crimes.htm

[JackRiddler]

58. The Allies invented the category for Nuremberg.

It's time they applied it to their own actions where warranted.

[ProSense]

3. This is parsing

The US has never ratified the treaty setting up the ICC and, as such, does not fall under its jurisdiction.

A whole lot was probably lost in translation. Yeah, we know Bush isn't Pol Pot, but he still committed war crimes, and yeah Bush refused to ratify the ICC treaty.





edited extra word

[ixion]

5. three words: Shock and Awe

'nuff said.

[Amonester]

6. double $tandard$ - eom

[Arctic Dave]

7. I guess we'll have to take care of it ourself. Get a rope.

Isn't this the attitude * and cheny would have? Why not let them have some of their own type of "justice".

[frog92969]

24. The world needs justice.

The evidence is official and in the public domain.

[liberalmuse]

8. This guy is a fucking hack.

A disgrace. Who is giving him money, and how much?

[NYC Democrat]

11. Yes yes he disagrees with you therefore he is a hack

:sarcasm:

[Hissyspit]

35. He may not be a hack

but he is wrong.

The legal precedents, the opinions of many experts, the evidence has all been well-documented here at Democratic Underground over the past six years.

[totodeinhere]

20. Wait a minute.

The "chief prosecutor at the war crimes tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda from 1994-1996 and currently head of a UN fact-finding team on international law violations" is just a hack?

[cali]

49. He's not a hack. I suggest you learn more about him.

I disagree with him but that doesn't make him a hack.

[4lbs]

9. After reading about everything he's been doing and involved with over the past 30 years

regarding human rights and war crimes, it's going to be very difficult to credibly label him some hack.

I'd like to know if a question was posed if they should be prosecuted for torture, if evidence (like those memos) comes to light that they approved the use of it.

While they might not be able to be held accountable for Iraq and Afghanistan, Guantanomo may be their downfall.

[liberalmuse]

10. It's hard to believe...

how someone with his "credentials" can say that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Rice were not a party to war crimes given the evidence so far. I'm not saying this guy doesn't have experience in this sort of thing, but how he came to this conclusion is unfathomable.

[4lbs]

16. I think he's limiting it to what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan.

However, I would think Abu Ghraib could be used as a cornerstone somehow at least for prosecution.

Cheney's and Rumsfeld's claims that it was "just a few bad apples" that General Janet Karpinski couldn't control were refuted earlier this year.

[Gregorian]

12. No crimes, aside from attacking and bombing the shit out of them.

So by this standard, bombing a nonthreatening country is considered legal? You can just Shock and Awe at will? Here we come Denmark! Bombs away Belgium!

[National Steel 27]

14. Hey, it's only a million or so civilians....

what's the big deal?

I was at a party on the plaza in Sonoma, CA, the other night when some asshat started whining about the hue and cry over civilian deaths in the ME. He said that, during "wartime", civilian deaths should be expected.

So I asked him if some Iraqi or Afghan whose family had been wiped out, should light himself/herself up in the plaza would he still feel the same.

The dude just packed it up and left the table.

Fucking assholes.

[Gregorian]

36. I walk in other's shoes.

It seems that so many people just can't see from someone else's perspective. I see you do. I always think of the dead Iraqis. It's significant. There seem to be so many selfish humans. Maybe it's mostly an American trait. It's hard to even drum up responses for Troy Davis's plight here in this forum. I see it as a similarity.

It's just a tiny speck in space, this planet. Kind of a weird thought. Insignificant. We're all in the same boat. But you might not know it.

[RedCloud]

15. How about using depleted uranium and then marching our troops right through it? Who gets rich that w

What sick fucks are making money off the medical suffering as a result?

That is how we treat OUR guys. Imagine how the other side gets treated.

[Mithreal]

17. No ICC Prosecutable War Crimes Were Committed?

"American citizens can in theory be put on trial at the ICC if they commit a war crime, or other crime serious enough to warrant a case, in a country that has signed up to the ICC, but then only if the US courts themselves don't take action.

Richard Goldstone said this is unlikely to happen as democracies like the US are always willing to demonstrate capable legal systems."

Did Iraq or Afghanistan sign the treaty? Iraq seems not, Afghanistan yes but without the complementary or co-operation legislation.

We all know war crimes have been committed. Goldstone says "some civilians being killed". Does that sound like what someone with an unimpeachable reputation would say?

[G_j]

19. agressive war was "utterly renounced" at Nuremberg nt

[Mithreal]

34. There may be some technicality with those who signed the ICC

is all I am suggesting.

Bush's pre-emptive wars were the most serious war crime.

[struggle4progress]

43. UN expert: US failing to properly probe war crimes (May 2009)

By FRANK JORDANS – May 28, 2009

GENEVA (AP) — An independent U.N. human rights investigator said Thursday that the United States is failing to properly investigate alleged war crimes committed by its soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Although some cases are investigated and lead to prosecutions, others aren't or result in lenient sentences, said Philip Alston, the U.N. Human Rights Council's special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings.

"There have been chronic and deplorable accountability failures with respect to policies, practices and conduct that resulted in alleged unlawful killings — including possible war crimes — in the United States' international operations," Alston said in a report dated May 26 and published on a U.N. Web site.

A spokesman for the U.S. mission in Geneva, Dick Wilbur, said Alston's conclusions and recommendations would be reviewed closely ...

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i35932dBSOrAFwOKt2xzaC9GWILQD98FF76G3

[Cleita]

18. I wonder if a little anti-Arab, pro-Israel bias is influencing his opinion? n/t

[Bette Noir]

21. He's not the final word.

[BobTheSubgenius]

22. The Nuremburg Tribunal disagrees, in my view.

"To initiate a war of aggression . . . is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

[AlphaCentauri]

23. Can somebody pass the body count to Mr. Goldstone

seems like he doesn't know how many people has die

some civilians being killed in Iraq or Afghanistan

[frog92969]

25. Why No Recs ????

Are we trying to hide this outrage?

K&R for visibility.

[AlphaCentauri]

33. it looks more like vindication than a real analysis of the wars

[Flaneur]

26. The whole thing was a war crime.

[swilton]

27. Goldstone was not praised for his independence on the ICTY

(International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia). Michael Mandel, Professor of Law at Osgoode Law School York University wrote HOW AMERICA GETS AWAY WITH MURDER, Illegal Wars, Collateral Damage and Crimes Against Humanity, (Pluto Press, 2004).

According to him, Goldstone was chosen as the first prosecutor by a process of elimination. "Bassiouni was opposed by Britain as a 'fanatic';.....the Russians refused anyone from a NATO country for fear of bias against the Serbs.....The Americans too preferred that the tribunal not be seen 'as an American show', even though they were determined to make it into one. Goldstone was a liberal white South African judge -a Westerner from a non-Western country-moderate enough to be trusted by both sides in the transition from apartheid. (130)

"It didn't take long for Goldstone to be completely in thrall to the Americans. On arriving in New York, after a brief meeting with the Secretary General and then the Security Council, the Prosecutor was given directly over to his handler by Madeleine Albright. In goldstone's own words: "Again, I was warmly welcomed by Madeleine Albright, who had played the leading role in having the tribunal established......She appointed one of her senior advisers, David Scheffer, to take special responsibility for moving the work of the tribunal forward. David became a friend and adviser to me, especially with regard to my contacts with th various branches of the United States administration. His commitment to the work of both tribunals was deep and supportive." (footnote) (131)

[Metta]

28. This guy's an obvious apologist and revisionist.

I'll bet he gets some fat plum assignment in six months.

[swilton]

29. Further notes from Mandel on Goldstone and the ICTY

"When he arrived at the Hague, Goldstone found the Prosecutor's office had already been assembled for him, with the majority of the personnel coincidentally hailing from the US: 'I had the distinct impression that (Deputy Prosecutor Graham) Blewitt was concerned that I might wish to reorganize the Office of the Prosecutor. Nothing was further from my mind.(footnote) Goldstone was very appreciative: 'The Americans were performing essential services that had enabled the initial investigatioins to begin even before my arrival.'(footnote) He developed a 'warm friendship' with the State Department legal adviser Conrad Harper, who was helpful in procuring evidence from CNN and a commitment of private money from George Soros, sealed at a reception at Soros' Manhattan residence for Goldstone and three ICTY judges. (footnote) People stated to complain: 'Goldstone, it was believed, was on-side with the U.S. administration. People from the State Department were on his staff.'(footnote) Goldstone was ultimately upbraided by the Secretary General: 'Boutros-Ghali also informed me that some of the permanent representatives of the United Nations had complained that I spent too much time with the Americans, and he agreed with these sentiments....My attitude made it quite clear to the Secretary General that I did not intend to change my policy.'(footnote)

" Not coincidentally, the tribunal's early years were marked by an anti-Serb bias that mirrored American policy very well; so well, in fact, that tribunal supporters started to fear for its credibility. It was clear to them at least that 'the fix was on.' (footnote) Of the first 75 indictments, 55 were issued against Serbs, 17 against Croats and 3 against Muslims. (footnote) By March 2002, by my count, it was 79 Serbs, 22 Croats and 8 Muslims. By then NATO had carried out its bombing of Yugoslavia, and the really glaring omission was the leaders and general of NATO countries."

"Goldstone left The Hague after only two years on the job to go back to South Africa."........(page 131)

[mullard12ax7]

30. Torture isn't torture! Nobody was tortured! Dayam, how many times...

am I going to hear that? Not to mention a proven conspiracy to commit war, killing civilians and creating a passive genocide that seen to be the main topics of cover-up in what used to be our democracy in the United States.

[burrowowl]

31. Say what!!!?

How about crimes against peace, Iraq did not attack us, ergo our attack on Iraq was not justified under the terms of conducting war!

[struggle4progress]

32. At least one Nuremberg prosecutor has disagreed

Could Bush Be Prosecuted for War Crimes?
By Jan Frel, AlterNet. Posted July 10, 2006.
http://www.alternet.org/world/38604/

Published on Friday, August 25, 2006 by OneWorld.net
Bush and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial, Says Nuremberg Prosecutor
by Aaron Glantz
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0825-06.htm

[joshcryer]

37. Richard Goldstone apparently understands that words have meaning.

[A1Sauce]

38. Yeah Right!

this a comedy piece?

[winyanstaz]

39. And a frog's butt isnt water-tight....and God didnt make little green apples.

This guy needs his head examined..he has lost it.

[libodem]

40. This would be my take

Perhaps it is not the United States government that is responsible of war crimes but the individuals who ordered them. Both wars have been replete with atrocities. There have been plenty of war crimes and many committed by private contractors, too. Lots of things have happened that we don't even know about. Bombing those Kurds under the proxy of Turkey is one of them. We have massacred POW's, walking off the battle fields in Afghanistan by the 1,000. Faluja was a disgrace. Iraq has been one money making enterprise for a chosen few. Now, they must pay.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

41. His perspective is quite narrow, apparently, with respect to crimes against humanity.

I find that narrow perspective sorrily unfortunate because; until those who oversee human interests are actually able to gauge them, via some scintilla of experience,...justice can not be advanced.

[magellan]

42. Volcker Commission?

Wiki: "In April 2004, Goldstone was appointed by Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, to the Independent International Committee, chaired by Paul Volcker, to investigate the Iraq Oil for Food program."

Has there been some wheelin' & dealin' behind the scenes? I can't believe Goldstone would reportedly be shocked by the level of destruction in Gaza just this past April, yet give US war crimes such an obvious whitewash.

[panzerfaust]

44. The war, in and of itself, is a crime

[and-justice-for-all]

46. I am pretty confident that it is a crime..

to invade and occupy a sovereign nation who did nothing to you.

"I don't believe that any allegation that I have read or heard against the United States leaders comes anywhere near the sorts of crimes that the ICC has been set up to investigate. Genocide, crimes against humanity, serious war crimes - it just doesn't measure up."
uh huh; my ass.

[Vidar]

47. Into the land of doublespeak we go, trala, trala.

[Solly Mack]

48. ...

January 2001

Clinton signs treaty for world criminal court


"President Clinton moved the world and the United States one step closer to an International Criminal Court (ICC) on December 31 when he ordered his representatives to sign the treaty to establish the court.

David Scheffer, U.S. ambassador-at-large for war crimes, a longtime proponent of the treaty, was the official who actually attached his signature to the document. His signature, however, does not obligate the United States to obey the treaty unless it is ratified by the U.S. Senate, which is unlikely, at least in the document's current form.

The 1998 Rome Treaty that Scheffer signed contains a provision that even President Clinton is opposed to: the right to try American soldiers for war crimes.

Despite this objection, Clinton says he had Scheffer sign the treaty because only signatories can lobby to change its language. Now, he insists, the Bush Administration will be able to work for modifications. Conservatives, however, do not want to modify the treaty and oppose even the concept of an international criminal court. "




May 2002

Bush administration said the Clinton administration's signature on the treaty creating the court was no longer legally binding.


In a letter to Kofi Annan, the secretary general of the United Nations, the Bush administration said the Clinton administration's signature on the treaty creating the court was no longer legally binding.

''The United States does not intend to become a party to the treaty,'' John R. Bolton, an undersecretary of state, wrote to Mr. Annan in a one-paragraph letter. ''Accordingly, the United States has no legal obligations from its signature on the December 31, 2000.''

Officials said that Mr. Bolton's statement was also intended to relieve the United States of obligations under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a 1969 agreement that requires states to refrain from taking steps to undermine treaties they sign, even if they do not ratify them."




March 22, 2009


Under Obama, US drops hostility to ICC: experts


"President Barack Obama's administration has dropped outright US hostility toward the world's first permanent war crimes court, but it is still a far cry from joining it, experts say.

US officials say the new team is reviewing its policy on the International Criminal Court (ICC) after former president George W. Bush's administration snubbed it and drew fire that it was showing contempt for international law.

But the Obama administration faces several obstacles if it wants to join.

Experts say it could meet resistance from the armed forces and Congress"


Jun-18-09

http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/us-committed-no-war-crimes-iraq">'US committed no war crimes in Iraq'

"Nothing the US did in Iraq could ever constitute a war crime that could be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court."


00-00-2009

??????????

[hack89]

50. If Obama thinks there were war crimes then he must prosecute first

the ICC is a court of last resort. I think that Obama won't do it as it is political dynamite. The OP simply points out that you can't count on the ICC to step in and do Obama's dirty work.

[choie]

52. "some allegations of torture" or "some civilians killed in Iraq and Afghanistan"..

That says it all.

[Amonester]

53. Perhaps most of the "some" (tens of thousands) killed are Arabs...

so they don't count as "real" humans for stonegold (and the neocons).

[IndianaGreen]

54. Our invasion of Iraq was a war of aggression, a war crime.

Our planning for a war of aggression was a crime against peace, also a war crime.

Mister Goldstone has totally ignored a good chunk of international law, including the Nuremberg precedent. How convenient!

[Mari333]

55. yes, and Im the Queen of England

is this man insane?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

56. What about one of the things the Nazis were condemned for: "waging aggressive war"?

That sure fits.

[riverdeep]

57. And this is how the Bush cabal will get away with it.

Make it seem like there is a debate.

What we know is already enough. They lied and knowingly distorted evidence to start a war- what could be more criminal than that? During that time, they tortured, not 'allegedly', they did torture. They've eliminated about a million people that would otherwise be walking the planet. They've displaced five million more into desperate poverty. They've taken over a sovereign nation without provocation.

These weren't honest errors in judgement or differences in policy, they were craven acts of power. What the fuck more does this guy need?