The Crime Of War: From Nuremberg To Fallujah

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.jihadunspun.com/intheatre_internal.php?article=101292&list=/home.php

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."

You can visit the State Department website to find a complete list of the international treaties to which our country is a signatory, under "Treaties in Force" <2>. These treaties are enforceable by national court systems in each country, but, without an international court system to ensure universal enforcement, the real consequences of violating international law are often political, economic and diplomatic rather than judicial. As we are finding in Iraq, these consequences can nevertheless be substantial.

It is important to understand that war crimes fall into two classes: 1) war crimes relevant to battlefield conduct; and 2) waging a war of aggression. To explain what was at that time an unprecedented focus on the second kind of war crime, war of aggression, the Nuremberg Judgment included the following statement:

more

[Vincardog]

1. When oh when are we going to see aWoL charged? He has to be held

responsible at least once in his life. If he can kill 200 thousand and walk away free there is no justice.

[Octafish]

2. Eternity next to Hitler is a long time.

And that is what awaits George Walker Bush, Sneering Dick Cheney, Gasman Rumsfeld, Comblicker Wolfowitz, Trireme Perle and all the rest of the BFEE scum. But before that day, let there be justice. From NNN0LHI's source:

Based on the principles established by the Caroline case and cited at Nuremberg, preventive or preemptive self-defense was not a legitimate rationale for invading Iraq, which posed no imminent threat to the United States. The facts that no "weapons of mass destruction" were found, and that their absence was suspected all along within the U.S. government, only serve to demonstrate the sound rationale behind these principles.

[NNN0LHI]

3. I am no judge, but this seemed like one hell of a well written piece

Did you notice that too?

Don

[Octafish]

4. Yes, sir. It reads like a professional researcher's work.

University professor kind of stuff.

Plus he writes like he gives a damn about people -- our kind of person.

http://www.focusweb.org/int-call/

[bpilgrim]

5. Fallujah = Nanking

Japanese aircraft bombed south Shanghai Station Aug.28,1937.
About 200 people in the waiting room were dead or wounded by the bombing. A crying baby was left alone after the bombing. - Life Oct. 4, 1937



also... there is a difference between "preventive" and "preemptive" war.

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

pre-emptive war is used to define action to prevent or attack an immediate threat and is LEGAL

preventive war is when you attack in the absence of an immediate threat in order to PREVENT a future attack and is ILLEGAL.

my only nit so far... but it seems everyone gets it wrong on this IMPORTANT point.

thanks for sharing :toast:

peace