U.N. Rights Boss Urges Falluja 'Abuses' Probe

[maddezmom]

GENEVA (Reuters) - Top United Nations (news - web sites) human rights official Louise Arbour called on Tuesday for investigation of alleged abuses in Falluja, Iraq (news - web sites), including disproportionate use of force and the targeting of civilians.



Those responsible for any violations -- U.S. and multinational forces, Iraqi government troops or insurgents -- should be brought to justice, the former U.N. war crimes prosecutor said in a statement.


"There have been a number of reports during the current confrontation alleging violations of the rules of war designed to protect civilians and combatants," Arbour said.


She gave no specific examples. But on Monday, Amnesty International accused both sides of breaking rules designed to protect civilians and wounded combatants during conflict.

~snip~

more: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20041116/ts_nm/iraq_falluja_un_dc&cid=564&ncid=1480

[NNN0LHI]

1. Ummm. Hey UN guys. What about that little detail of an illegal war?

You known the one. The one where the USA invaded and occupied a sovereign country. Which is against everything the UN stands for. Yea, that one. Assholes.

Don

[Trumanway]

5. I think the UN is stuck on a technicality here...

The UN has an ongoing military action against Saddam's Iraq from Desert Storm. A cease fire for inspection and compliance is the official condition of the UN conflict in Iraq. The inspectors must complete inspections and certify Saddam's compliance to UN standards to accomplish a peace and a peace treaty.

The US always reserved the right to enforce UN sanctions and policy unilaterally without UN approval. So, technically the US can use military force, and the UN can disapprove but they can't call the war illegal, only any individual criminal acts that occur during the war.

I know it's not much of a comfort, but the UN officials are following the law.

[NNN0LHI]

7. Up jumped the devil. BBC - Iraq war illegal, says Annan

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.

He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.

The UK government responded by saying the attorney-general made the "legal basis... clear at the time".

Mr Annan also warned security in Iraq must considerably improve if credible elections are to be held in January.

more

[cubsfan forever]

8. Now I suppose Commander No-Nuts

will say that the U.N. is irrelevant (or was that Colon Powell?). And
wasn't he ranting on a few days ago about how the U.N. MUST help out with the cost of Iraqnam? Coward, AWOL bastard!

Professor 2

[Trumanway]

10. Yes, S-G Annan did say "illegal act"....

and he could say that because the operative qualifier in the statement was that the act violated the "UN Charter", which it does.

Ok, now come the details,

The (agreed to) UN Charter is older than the Security Council approved agreement regarding Desert Storm.

The Security Council has absolute power over final UN policy. No policy or action may be implemented without Security Council approval. The US has veto over the Security Council. To start Desert Storm the Security Council had to agree to US conditions (they got some of their own, too). The Security Council agreed, thus amending the Charter for Desert Storm only. Here's the trick: Desert Storm authority can only be stopped by peace treaty (already discussed), or Security Council resolution (remember veto). No resolution, no suspension of authority, but the war is still illegal under the CHARTER, which is not in force in Iraq by order of the Security Council.

The spirit of the law is broken, but the letter of the law is not.

[Spazito]

11. The codicil to that is: if the US is accused of wrong-doing in a

resolution to come before the Security Council, their veto is void. As the subject of the resolution, they cannot vote.

[Trumanway]

12. Correct,...

and a resolution, properly worded, may be effective, but there are other vetos On the Council and other major players in and out of Iraq, plus some corruption sprinkled in.

Not only is Iraq a very dangerous and diffucult mess to pick our way through, the Security Council and it's resolutions are a dangerous and dificult mess for the members to pick their way through. I'm not sure that like a capital murder jury has twelve possible vetoes in it, any one of which will prevent conviction, the SC will not have a veto in it even with the US not voting. That is probably why it hasn't happened.

But this is straying from my original intent, which was to say that there are some reasonable people in the UN that are trying to do their jobs and implement a more inclusive response to Iraq. They are just not all-powerful and dropping the ball.

[G_j]

2. please, please

please let something come of this!

[maddezmom]

14. have you seen this? ICRC 800 civilians estimated dead

http://electroniciraq.net/news/1716.shtml

[G_j]

16. yes

I wonder if this made the mainstream US media.
Given their track record, I douubt it.. :-(

[Spazito]

3. Former Justice Arbour sat on the Canadian Supreme Court as well as...

having served as UN war crimes prosecutor, she was pivotal to getting an indictment against Milosevic, she doesn't back down no matter what! I am happy that the UN has finally spoken up on these breaches of international law.

[G_j]

4. that sounds hopeful n/t

[bluetrain]

6. kick for hope

[Spazito]

9. Kick for justice!

*

[maddezmom]

13. AFP- Falluja Killing Could Be War Crime -Rights Groups

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Human rights groups said on Tuesday the killing by a U.S. Marine of a wounded Iraqi could amount to a war crime and showed the need for U.S. forces to be better trained about the laws of war.

"If it is what it appears to be, then obviously it would be a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. It would probably be a war crime," said Joe Stork, Washington director of the Middle East division of Human Rights Watch.


Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International echoed calls by the top U.N. human rights official, Louise Arbour, for an investigation of suspected abuses in Falluja, Iraq (news - web sites), including the disproportionate use of force and targeting of civilians.


The U.S. military has launched an investigation after NBC pool footage showed a U.S. Marine shooting a wounded and unarmed man in a mosque in Falluja, the scene of fierce fighting in the past week.

more: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20041116/ts_nm/iraq_falluja_rights_dc&cid=564&ncid=1480

[CHIMO]

15. Should Canada indict Bush?

When U.S. President George W. Bush arrives in Ottawa — probably later this year — should he be welcomed? Or should he be charged with war crimes?

It's an interesting question. On the face of it, Bush seems a perfect candidate for prosecution under Canada's Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act.

This act was passed in 2000 to bring Canada's ineffectual laws in line with the rules of the new International Criminal Court. While never tested, it lays out sweeping categories under which a foreign leader like Bush could face arrest.

In particular, it holds that anyone who commits a war crime, even outside Canada, may be prosecuted by our courts. What is a war crime? According to the statute, it is any conduct defined as such by "customary international law" or by conventions that Canada has adopted.


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1100517502971&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795