The crime of war: from Nuremberg to Fallujah

[rodeodance]

I highly doubt anyone--much less a neocon will ever be convicted of war crimes.

The crime of war: from Nuremberg to Fallujah

http://www.onlinejournal.com/

December 31, 2004—In September, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan told the BBC that the U.S./British invasion of Iraq was illegal under international law <1>. The following week, he dedicated his entire annual address to the U.N. General Assembly to the subject of international law, saying, "We must start from the principle that no one is above the law, and no one should be denied its protection." So, how was the invasion of Iraq illegal? How does that affect the situation there today? And what are the practical implications of this for U.S. policy going forward, in Iraq and elsewhere?



The Secretary General presumed what the world generally accepts, that international law is legally binding upon all countries. In the United States however, international law is spoken of differently, as a tool that our government can use selectively to enforce its will on other nations, or else circumvent when it conflicts with sufficiently important U.S. interests. For the benefit of readers in the U.S., I therefore feel obliged to preface a review of war crime in Iraq with a look at the actual legal status of international law, both in international terms and in terms of our own national framework of constitutional law.

When the president of the United States signs a treaty and it is ratified by the U.S. Senate, our country is making a solemn undertaking. The seriousness of such commitments is exemplified by the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials and subsequent international trials, in which individual national leaders have been held criminally responsible for treaty violations and, when convicted, have been sentenced to long terms of imprisonment or even death by hanging. In our own constitutional system, Article VI Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the "Supremacy Clause," grants international treaties the same "supreme" status as federal law and the Constitution itself. It reads:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."......

[RC]

1. And with a stroke of the pen on an executive order

bu$h rescinds what Congress had passed.

[indepat]

3. Isn't that the way dictators operate in totalitarian states: in heaven's

name, why don't the Congress and the Supreme Court squelch the likes of this just like squashing a fly and why don't the media scream to high heaven? Just wondering.

[bpilgrim]

2. "preventive" or "preemptive"

i take issue with this...

"There is actually an internationally accepted standard in international law for "preventive" or "preemptive" military action, known as the Caroline case."

there is a HUGE difference between PRE-EMPTING a KNOWN an IMMINENT threat vs PREVENTING a threat from arising sometime in the future :argh:

Preventive and Preemptive

* DoD Dictionary of Military Terms

• preemptive attack - (DOD) An attack initiated on the basis of incontrovertible evidence that an enemy attack is imminent
  
  
• preventive war - (DOD) A war initiated in the belief that military conflict, while not imminent, is inevitable, and that to delay would involve greater risk
  

...

source...
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-law.htm#preventive

see also...

Working Group on Preventive and Preemptive Military Intervention

...

It is one thing to mount aggressive self-defense against an enemy force
that constitutes a clear and present danger. It is another matter to attack
a potential enemy who is suspected of plotting an attack at some
unspecified location and time. The latter case may involve activity more
accurately described as preventive – instead of preemptive – military
intervention.

In testimony before Congress, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
appears to blur this fine, yet important distinction.

However, as historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., notes, "Rebaptizing
preventive war as preemptive war doesn't change its character. Preventive
war is based on the proposition that it is possible to foretell with
certainty what is to come."

Careful reflection and commentary on these trends seems essential, as many
high-stakes decisions with long-term implications loom in the future. We
think the time has come to undertake a reasoned and balanced inquiry of the
evolving doctrine of preventive intervention, its historical and
institutional roots, its present day rendering and interpretation, its
theoretical status, and its implications for international relations in the
contemporary period. To this end we are establishing and coordinating a
Working Group on Preventive and Preemptive Military Intervention.

source...
http://www.ridgway.pitt.edu/home/publications/Ridgway/RidgwayCP_Preventive_Preemptive_Intervention.pdf

we ALL need to educate our selves on this important distinction and the MEDIA.

peace