Why hasn't Lebanon filed charges at the Hague against US made weapons killing their citizens?

[sinkingfeeling]

I'm am sick to death of these warmongers going on and on that Iran's highest levels of government are behind a handful of weapons found in Iraq.

Seems to me that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Wish Lebanon would file formal international complaints that the USA has been supplying cluster bombs used by Israel against their citizens.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/787436.html

"Israel receives $3 billion in annual military assistance from the U.S., and nearly the entire amount is used to procure American-made weapons. "The considerations are budgetary. There are needs and it is clearly understandable why American weapons, paid for with aid funds, are preferred over Israeli weapons," the defense source said. "But these bomblets are 'friendly' for our soldiers as well, and they are the ones that need to enter the zone that was saturated with cluster bombs," he added.

In response the army said that "because of operational considerations, the IDF is unable to comment on the weapons it has in its arsenal. However, it should be noted that the IDF makes use of weapons and tactics that are permissible in international law." "

And then there's the US investigation into this, here:

http://www.imemc.org/article/21064
"The report said American munitions found included 559 M-42’s, an anti-personnel bomblet used in 105-millimeter artillery shells; 663 M-77’s, a submunition found in M-26 rockets; and 5 BLU-63’s, a bomblet found in the CBU-26 cluster bomb. Also found were 608 M-85’s, an Israeli-made submunition.

Edited for second link.

[Kagemusha]

1. Er, on what grounds?

Could the Nazis sue the US for its citizens who were killed by US munitions sold to the Allies prior to the US' entry into WWII when the US was officially neutral?

So why would Lebanon be able to file charges against the US for munitions it manufactured and sold but did not fire?

[sinkingfeeling]

3. But the USA can charge Iran with manufacturing weapons they sold but didn't fire?

[Kagemusha]

5. Not criminally!

The US can make accusations to justify a war, but it's not charges in the sense of dragging Iran to court, far from it!

[sinkingfeeling]

6. Personally, it would be a much better world if 'differences' were all brought before

international courts instead of one country simply making war on another.

[Kagemusha]

7. Maybe so, but that's not this world.

The US didn't bring Japan to court for Pearl Harbour. It hit back. That's our world.

[sinkingfeeling]

8. So, are you saying you buy into the administration's newest claim that

all that is wrong in Iraq is Iran's interference?

[Kagemusha]

9. That's got nothing to do with Hague charges.

And no, I don't, but that's because of reality, not out of any love of Iran, or any hatred of the US administration, just pure, reality based disbelief.

[sinkingfeeling]

12. Sorry, just trying to understand your stance. You seemed to imply that

the US would be justified in starting another war with Iran based on the weapons issue. I can't see Lebanon attacking USA in retaliation for the cluster bombs, since it would be insane for them to do so. However, way back in Israel's first invasion of Lebanon, the Congress did find Israel had violated the agreements accompanying the sale of cluster bombs to them and banned further sales for 6 years. So there are some things that do apply to weapons being sold around the world. There are currently international humanitarian laws restricting the use of cluster bombs and Norway intends to hold an international conference this year to ban their use.


I'm just a strong believer in 'war as the last possible resort'. I want 'differences' settled by international laws, diplomacy and negotiation.

[The Stranger]

4. Er, the U.S. wasn't neutral here but fomented the war, according to Sy Hersch.

And, er, the grounds would be fairly obvious.

[Kagemusha]

14. No, the grounds would not be obvious.

If I take a Toyota Camry and run someone over, the victim doesn't get to sue Camry for manufacturing the car. The car didn't have a defect (in this example, the defect would be my own).

The US isn't going to file a civil suit against Iran. It's going to propagandize to lay the grounds for various stages of armed conflict. That has nothing to do with the law...

Edit: This fresh DU thread illustrates the point. No one's gonna be suing Austria for its weapons winding up in Iraq:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x202488

[The Stranger]

16. Toyota Camrys are not cluster bombs.

Let's start there.

[Kagemusha]

18. Cluster bombs are still legal.

Far from me to argue that they should be, but they are, so we're not gonna see court cases over it. Ever.

Darn shame or not.

I don't see why this doesn't end here, rather than start though. Like I said. Going after Iran just has nothing to do with lawsuits...

[The Stranger]

20. There are two issues there.

The first is what you recognize -- the implicit legality or illegality of the use of cluster bombs. And your statement that they are "legal" is not really correct. They have not yet been proscribed for any and all uses under international law. They are illegal, however, when used in certain circustances, and the U.S. State Department was investigating their illegal or prohibited use by Israel against Lebanon.

But you miss the second issue. Regardless of whether the use, in itself, of a cluster bomb is or is not illegal, it can be used (and be essential) to commit a crime or a tort. If you needed a Toyota Camry to run over someone, and Toyota gladly provided you with a Camry to do so, of course, they would be liable under any number of theories.

[Kagemusha]

21. Even though I see where you're coming from...

Toyota's position would be that it sold you a car to drive in the legally prescribed, completely legitimate manner, not for the express purpose of running someone over. In the same manner, the US sold cluster bombs with various understandings that they would be used in legitimate warfare. (There's been some talk - and that's all it is, talk - that the US should sanction Israel for improperly using the cluster bombs, but it's political suicide within the Bush Administration should such an option be seriously attempted.) The seemingly good faith of the seller is all that's necessary for immunization against liability.

The international system is an imperfect setup with a lot of work in recent years to destroy the idea of sovereign immunity (except for the US, which is very sovereign and very immune) so, what it comes down to, you may not be able to sue a country for misusing weapons of war, or for selling weapons of war, or for providing weapons of war to people your own nation does not like, but you CAN trump up charges to justify going in and beating the perpetrator to a bloody pulp. THAT is the world we live in. It is far from ideal. It is far from what I would prefer. But it is the only issue relevant regarding Iran, weapons to Iraqi "terrorists", and the US.

[PLF]

2. The hypocrisy is astounding

[butterfly77]

11. They only look at it from america's point of view...

plus the fact that they think they are smart and everyone else is stupid or dumb...

[Selatius]

10. This is like suing a gun maker because the murderer used a gun to kill your wife

You're going after the wrong party, and the courts have generally not entertained such cases.

[sinkingfeeling]

13. Then the USA is 'going after' Iran because of what?

[Selatius]

15. Because the weapons story is merely an excuse.

These guys have always wanted a war. The existence of Iranian arms or lack thereof is simply a cover story to excuse any potential act of aggression on apart of the US government.

They can try and use it as an excuse, but it is likely that the excuse probably would not hold up in an international court of law.

A layman's analogy would be Mr. America suing Iran Gun Makers, Inc., not because the murderer happened to use a gun of theirs to kill his wife but because the murder gave him a convenient excuse to settle an old grudge with the businessowners. It probably wouldn't hold up in a US courtroom.

What makes you think it would hold up in international law? It probably wouldn't, but propaganda dictates you paint a picture of necessity in the eyes of the subjects you rule over in order to get them to support your war. The Iran weapons story is prime evidence of that cardinal rule of propaganda. It attempts to make a violent confrontation with Iran a "necessity."

[sinkingfeeling]

19. I'm really sorry but I think you guys missed the point. There are international laws

against the use of cluster bombs on civilian populations. There is the UN Charter that says it's illegal for one nation to invade another without provocation. You guys seem to argue that it's OK for Mr. America to kill the Iran Gun Makers because a gun of theirs was used to kill his wife. But it's not OK for Mr. America to try the courts first.

I was trying to point out that here we have the USA screaming at the top of its lungs that 'Iran is arming the people who are killing our troops in Iraq' and threating Iran. So if we (or Bush&co, more specifically) can get away with this, why can't the dozens of other countries in the world scream about the USA arming people who have killed tens of thousands of their citizens?

[The Stranger]

17. Slight change in facts: The murderer was on his way to kill your wife, when the gun maker provided

the gun.