Cindy Sheehan: Harming Civilians is a War Crime

[babylonsister]

Harming Civilians is a War Crime


Journey for Humanity and Accountability, Day 7
By Cindy Sheehan

The Journey for Humanity and Accountability took a two days hiatus in Charlotte, NC while I traveled home to the Bay Area to attend the memorial service of a dear friend of mine. The rest of the group used the time in Charlotte to repair tires, rest, catch up on emails and help work on the next few stops. In the meantime, to the consternation of the Democratic blogosphere, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has 7 more days to put impeachment back on the table. Very few people on these blogs recognize the fact that it's not my fault that Ms. Pelosi is not doing her job.

From the comments on the blogs many people are just pleased as punch to wait until George Bush is gone in January '09 or are happy to give the Dems more time to grow a spine. I would hazard a guess that not too many of these people have a child, parent or spouse in Iraq or have any heart-connection with our brothers and sisters who are being wiped off the face of Mesopotamia so BushCo can control their oil and so that the war profiteers who line the pockets of Democrats and Republicans alike can reap Midas-like fortunes.

War was never a good way to solve problem. However,
since World War I the disproprotionate rates that
civilians have been killed to combantants has risen so
dramatically and now it is about 200 civilians to
every one of our soldiers being killed. Why are we
aloowing BushCo to destroy a beautiful country and its
wonderful inhabitants in their corporate imperialistic
fervor?

Not only is it a war crime to aggressively and
egregiously invade a country pre-emptively but during
an occupation it is against Geneva Conventions to kill
innocent civilians and not provide for their basic
human needs of food, shelter, medical care and
security. Security is a joke and not only has the US
not provided these simple needs, doctors, hospitals
and ambulances have been targeted.

I have heard from a doctor in Sadr City whose hospital
is in dire need of equipment and medical supplies. His
hospital specializes in blood cancer cases which have
risen 242% since the First Gulf War. 1500 people a
month need transfusions, when there is spare blood,
and patients often have to share a bed with one or two
other people.

Another humanitarian crises of monumental proportions
is the refugee crisis that the repulsive occupation
has created.

Millions of Iraqis have fled Iraq or have become
homeless within their own country. Just about
everyone who is able has fled the country. Refugee
camps in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and Iran have
compromised the stability of those countries while the
refugees are barely surviving. To make matters worse,
the imperialistic country that has created this
humanitarian catastrophe will only welcome 7000 to our
shores this year. We have plenty of resources and room
here in the US for the inhumanely displaced people of
Iraq and wouldn't it be great if helping these people
brought attention to the fact of our own homeless and
disadvantaged citizens?

The longer we wait the longer (if ever) that it will
take for the Middle East and our own country to
recover from BushCo.

Impeach BushCo for crimes against our country and
Consititution.

Remove BushCo from office for justice and to restore
the rule of law to the ruling class elite.

Imprison BushCo for their crimes against humanity to
reassure the world that the US will no longer harbor
war criminals.

Go to www.thecampcaseypeaceinstitute.org for more info
on our Journey or to donate to help cover our expenses
and to enable us to help the hospitals in Iraq and
Iraqi refugees.

[Nikki Stone1]

1. Kick.

Go Cindy

[Jack Bone]

2. Here's another

:kick: for a :patriot:

[northzax]

3. wow, when did she find the time to go to law school?

what a simplistic reading of the basics of international law. no, actually, the invasion of Iraq was not actually a war crime. Anyone who thinks it was is perfectly welcome to back this up by citing chapter and verse of the specific clause of the law broken. please, I welcome it.

second off, civilian casualties are not a war crime either. the deliberate targeting of civilians as targets is a war crime, if there is no legitimate military objective possible, but secondary casualties, so called 'collateral damage' even when it is neglectful, is not a war crime. I welcome anyone to show me chapter and verse of the appropriate Geneva Conventions detailing this issue if I am wrong. Ms. Sheehan talks about international law as if it really exists in this case, it doesn't.

Boy, I sure hope we can elect someone with such a legal mind.

[ClintonTyree]

6. Brings new meaning to the word....

dilettante, doesn't she? I'm beginning to think that the people who said "it's all about Cindy" and "she's only after the publicity" are correct. Cindy Sheehan has jumped the shark.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Does it take a "legal mind" to consider killing civilians a crime?

[proud2BlibKansan]

17. Apparently so

if you hate Cindy. :eyes:

[CreekDog]

20. Proud2: you just made an ad hominem attack on another poster

Sheehan said that it is a war crime by Geneva Convention standards to kill civilians.

The other poster said Sheehan was wrong, and Sheehan was wrong.

"Hating" Sheehan (which there was no evidence of) has nothing to do with it.

One of these days, if you are going to win arguments, you might start making actual arguments first and like backing them up with information, definitions, sources, etc.

But nooooo, for today and other days, you just blather that so and so hates Cindy Sheehan and that either 1) makes them wrong or 2) means we shouldn't listen to them. What utter nonsense.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

30. !

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[Marrah_G]

62. Good post

:applause:

[LittleClarkie]

63. Reminds me of being told I hate the President and that's why I criticize him

A repugnant debate stopper no matter who uses it.

[Lerkfish]

66. indeed. The problem is, only someone emotionally invested in a public figure

characterizes valid criticism as hatred.
they take it personally, just like those who support with irrational fealty any figure, be it Bush, or Clinton or Vitter (heh)

[proud2BlibKansan]

91. Why are you telling ME? I am not a mod!

If you think I broke the rules, turn me in. Talk about utter nonsense. :eyes:

[CreekDog]

96. Proud: Because I thought it was wrong, rules or not

And it was a crummy argument to boot.

[proud2BlibKansan]

106. You are entitled to your opinion

But not to call me out. Again, that's what mods are for.

[CreekDog]

122. Calling out broken rules is for the moderators

Calling you out for an innaccurate and unfair statement is not against the rules.

And you have never taken back your statement that Northzax "hates" Sheehan.

Well, does he or doesn't he?

[xultar]

41. Dramatic...much?

[proud2BlibKansan]

92. Nah only when it fits

[CreekDog]

99. Proud: how often does it fit?

Seems like pretty often.

[xultar]

142. honestly, me too.

[LittleClarkie]

48. Like we only criticize the president because we hate the president

in fact we hate America. We're just haters.

Didn't work for the Republicans, won't work now.

[DancingBear]

83. Nice crowd, huh?

Remember, these are "caring concerned Democrats who only want what's best for our great country".

Yea, right.

Makes you proud to be in the company of such puppets, don't it?

They make me sick.

And now, off to somewhere else for a breath of fresh air and real live astute discussion.

[proud2BlibKansan]

94. They are now actually defending the war!!

Good grief. It boggles the mind. And no it don't make me too proud.

[northzax]

97. ok, I am done with this

if you are incapable of determining the difference between law and morality, then no wonder you take everything personally. I had the same problem once.

goodbye.

[DancingBear]

141. Now let me understand this

Allowed: Discussing the legal "merits" of an illegal war.

Not Allowed: Cindy Sheehan group.

Wake up kids, the left wing train you thought you were on is moving to the right.

Open your eyes.

[proud2BlibKansan]

153. Yes you have that correct

Not only no Cindy Sheehan group but it is also okay to invade very single thread where her name is mentioned and repeat the same old tired attacks.

Also apparently it isn't okay to discuss Cindy's work or state that we support her. See, even though she hasn't declared her candidacy yet, she is fair game. But we CAN discuss Ron Paul, and last time I checked, he was a Republican and a declared candidate.

Now I am dying to know why it's okay to express support for Ron Paul, who is a lunatic libertarian, but not Cindy Sheehan, a true progressive. Oh my brain hurts. :)

[proud2BlibKansan]

12. So you need a law degree to know that murdering innocent civilians is wrong?

Wow, who knew? :shrug:

[northzax]

13. wrong, or a crime?

a crime is a violation of a law. things can be morally wrong without violating a law. Ms. Sheehan doesn't make a moral argument here, she is trying to make a legal one, and I posit that the overlying war isn't a war crime, morally wrong, sure, but not a war crime as determined by the statutes on the books at this time.

unless you can cite the statute that was violated?

[proud2BlibKansan]

16. It's an international crime

Surely you aren't asking me to cite the specific law that makes it illegal to invade a country and kill its people. :rofl:

[northzax]

25. yes, actually. I am

you say something is a crime, you should be able to cite the law that it violates. so can you do it, or not?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

55. You want a citation?

Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War

[northzax]

71. and this has what to do with the invasion?

I find no violations. and that is chapter, please delineate exactly which section of said convention, that the US has ratified, has been violated in which cases. this is law, we are talking about, we need specifics.

and no, don't say "if you don't know, I can't help you" detail exactly what charges you would file in your impeachment proceedings. Citing US law, or applicable and relevant international treaties (which, of course, become US law as soon as the Senate ratifies them and they go into force under the terms of said treaty). specific examples, please.

think of it this way: you are in traffic court, and the prosecutor says "oh, come on, he must have sped at some point" would you accept that charge? or would you insist on specific charges for specific offenses? This is why we try not to confuse law with morals. they aren't the same thing.

[conscious evolution]

80. See post 69 for chapter and verse.

Particularly Principle VI.

[Breeze54]

107. War Crimes Committed by the United States in Iraq

Snip-->

War Crimes Committed by the United States in Iraq and Mechanisms for Accountability

http://www.consumersforpeace.org/pdf/war_crimes_iraq_101006.pdf


The report was prepared by Consumers for Peace (www.consumersforpeace.org) with
the advice of Karen Parker, noted lawyer in human rights and humanitarian law.
Ms. Parker is President of the San-Francisco-based Association of Humanitarian Lawyers (www.humanlaw.org)
and Chief Delegate to the United Nations for the Los Angeles-based International Educational
Development/Humanitarian Law Project (IED/AHL),
an accredited non-governmental organization on the U.N. Secretary-General’s list.

October 10, 2006

Endorsements of War Crimes Committed by the United State in Iraq and Mechanisms for
Accountability:

Howard Zinn, a historian, playwright, and social activist, is perhaps best known for A People's
History of the United States, which presents American history through the eyes of those he feels
are outside of the political and economic establishment.

He writes:

"This report on the war crimes of the current administration is an invaluable resource, with
a meticulous presentation of the evidence and an astute examination of international law."

Dahr Jamail, noted independent journalist who spent more than eight months reporting from
occupied Iraq,

writes the following about the report:

“I cannot endorse strongly enough this report prepared by Karen Parker regarding U.S.
war crimes in Iraq. Having witnessed much of what is so well documented in this report,
it is a clear and encompassing indictment of the Bush Administration for the war crimes
they are directly responsible for in Iraq. Until evidence such as this begins to see the
light of day in a court of law and the perpetrators brought to justice, the world remains
unsafe and unstable from an administration determined to rule the world. After
witnessing what they are capable of in Iraq, I have no doubt these people will not stop in
their quest for world domination. Instead, they must be stopped. And the only way to do
that is bring the guilty to justice. This document will help achieve that goal.”

Kathy Kelly, co-coordinator of Voices for Creative Non-Violence and three-time Noble Peace3
Prize nominee,

has visited Iraq 28 times in the last 15 years.

She writes:

“After spending four days in the fortified and secure Green Zone, in Iraq, during
September ’06, former Secretary of State James Baker III assured that the investigative
panel he led had not spent any time “wringing our hands over what mistakes might or
might not have been created in the past.” (NYT, September 20, 2006). The “Consumers
for Peace” report on war crimes committed in Iraq helps us understand our responsibility
not to wring our hands but rather to demand accountability from elected representatives
by delivering this report to them and to local media. How many people killed? How
many families torn apart? How many homes destroyed? How many livelihoods gone?
How many lives ruined? How many cities sacrificed? We bear responsibility to end the
war in Iraq, insist on just reparations for suffering caused, and promote careful, legal
scrutiny of the crimes committed. This report beckons all who read it to stop
collaborating with illegal, immoral warmongers who recklessly afflict Iraq.”

Neil MacKay, multi-award winning Home Affairs and Investigations Editor of the Sunday
Herald (Scotland),

writes:

"What has happened in Iraq is a great sin and a great crime. The invasion and occupation
have stained the concepts of democracy, freedom and liberty; and disgraced the good
name of the people of both the United States of America and Great Britain. As a
journalist who has investigated the roots of this war, and the on-going horror of what is
happening in Iraq, I fully commend this report to readers. It is an important reminder of
the blood which is on the hands of our leaders, and the shame that the governments of the
UK and the USA have brought to the British and American people by perpetrating a
criminal war in our name."

snip-->

Because of a huge media failure in the United States, many Americans do not realize
how many times the Bush administration has violated international law. But, the rest
of the world knows very well the extent of these crimes.

PDF is 38 pages long.

[proud2BlibKansan]

110. But wait, are you a lawyer?

Can't be making those accusations unless you're a lawyer, Breeze! :sarcasm:

[Breeze54]

137. Nope but I hired one or two before and I can google!

:P

[Lerkfish]

14. we have a nation of lawyers as politicans....and see where that has left us.

an erzatz dictatorship and crumbling of the checks and balances system as well as destruction of civil liberties and the trashing of the constitution.

all by lawyers.

maybe its time to have actual people in office.

[northzax]

23. you mean the checks and balances

and constitution written by lawyers? that one?

my point is that you can't call something a crime if it isn't actually against the law at the time it is done. that would entail an ex post facto law, something banned by Article I, Section 9, of that same Constitution you claim others should be punished for violating. so you would break the law to enforce the law. how do you square that?

[Swamp Rat]

26. So, are you claiming the invasion of Iraq was legal?

1. The U.S. Congress must declare war.

2. United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan declared the Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter.

Now, please explain how the deaths of thousands of civilians in Iraq perpetrated by U.S. armed forces was legal.

[northzax]

32. wrong

under the War Powers Resolution, the Congress enabled the President to commit US forces for a period of 60 days. Before 60 days expire, the President must ask congress for either a declaration of war, or a resolution authorizing the continued use of force. And, of course, P.L. 107-243 does just that.

You could, I suppose, argue that the WPR is unconstitutional, that the United States cannot legally engage in military activities without a formal Declaration of War in advance of such activities, but that seems unlikely to carry the day, to me.

As for the UN, this is a slightly tougher question. However, given that the 1993 resolutions were still in place, and that the Security Council had not declared, and still has not declared, them not to be in effect, (yes, the game is rigged, big time) I see no violation. Where was Mr. Annan speaking out when the invasion was obviously going to happen, before it commenced? if he was convinced it was a crime, and he had foreknowledge that there was a crime about to be committed, he has a legal and moral obligation to speak out against it, like so many of us did. He didn't. Therefore, I find his post dated outrage a bit spurious.

on edit: as to your last point. Where I come from, the assumption is that something is legal unless you can demonstrate that it violates a law. the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' concept. you don't need to prove something is legal, you need to prove something is illegal.

[Swamp Rat]

37. Wrong. WPR is unconstitutional. Period.

Apprently you accept P.L. 107-243, and the presidents signing statements too... oh, 'innocent until proven guilty'. Now I understand you.

Good luck with that position.

:hi:

[northzax]

43. indeed

it was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court back in, when was that again?

is your argument that the US cannot engage in military activities, outside the United States, without a formal declaration of war? or that Congress' power to declare war cannot be overridden by Congress continuing to appropriate funding? Can you not construe the continue appropriation of funding as an endorsement of the activity by the Congress?

oh, and by the way, if you followed a law on the books that later is found unconstitutional, you cannot be held responsible for that action, since you followed the law at the time as it was written.

[Lerkfish]

27. I"m only arguing the point of insisting a lawyer run for office.

not the original poster's point.

However, I can see where that is confusing to you.

I was responding only to this statement of yours:

Boy, I sure hope we can elect someone with such a legal mind.

[northzax]

33. well, I would rather have a lawyer

than someone who claims a violation of a law that doesn't exist, right?

Ms. Sheehan can make a strong moral case for the idea that the war was unjustified morally, but if her grasp of the law is so weak, it makes me skeptical of her other legal arguments, like those concerning impeachment (which is a legal proceeding, right?) that's all.

Certainly you don't need to be a lawyer to hold public office, look at George Bush, the MBA president, but you need to be able to at least listen rationally to people with a grasp of the law. Ms. Sheehan claims her only issue in impeachment of George Bush and Dick Cheney, but the activity she cites as justification for impeachment isn't actually illegal. See the dilemma?

[LanternWaste]

44. And I'd rather have someone,,,

And I'd rather have someone who says killing civilians during war is a crime rather than a lawyer. Takes all kinds, huh?

[northzax]

46. let me clarify this please

are you arguing that the deaths of any civilians in wartime is a war crime? that all wars are therefore violations of the laws of war? seems like this defeats the purpose of the laws of war, in the first place, doesn't it?

[LanternWaste]

50. No. I'm simply stating

No. I made no argument, therefore I'm not arguing for or against anything, 'kay? Observation/Opinion does not equal argument (as far as I know...)

I'm simply stating it seems more conducive to a civilized culture to have someone in power who believes that killing civilians during a war is illegal, rather than a lawyer... all other things being equal

You can read any damn thing into it you want to... whether you're correct or not is a different matter.

[northzax]

53. and I would rather have someone

who believes that while it may be legal, it is certainly immoral, and recognizes the difference between the two.

[Lerkfish]

57. to the dead civilians, it matters not.

whether they were killed illegally or immorally.

that's the whole problem with lawyers. They are able to separate justice from law and prevent them from ever cohabitating again.

[northzax]

102. and this is an argument against all war

which is fine. but not relevant, right? Yeah, war sucks, it's why we shouldn't have any more. but there are, in fact, at times, going to be wars. and people will die in them. all we can do is try to minimize that.

[Lerkfish]

120. an argument against war is not relevant to a discussion on whether this war is a crime?

er...ok...

[CreekDog]

19. northzax: thanks for correcting the mistakes Sheehan continually makes

[Swamp Rat]

29. See post #26

[knowledgeispwr]

22. Stop it, you're making too much sense!

People need to recognize that there is a difference between morally/ethically wrong and illegal/against the law. And no, people who can see the difference aren't necessary for this (unnecessary) war.

[Swamp Rat]

28. See post #26

[LSK]

47. fuck, we now have people defending this war just to bash Cindy

Disgusting.

Heres a hint: under what conditions does the UN allow wars?

bonus: what does the US Constitution say about about treaties?

[Lerkfish]

59. disgusting, isn't it?

people reveal much about themselves by whom they target, and the means they're willing to employ to target them.

[northzax]

82. excellent reading comprehension

since I have said nothing about Ms. Sheehan except that her legal reasoning is weak. I guess thou shalt not touch the idol, though.

And yes, the UN allows wars in self defense or to enforce a Resolution of the UN Security Council. otherwise, of course, the Security Council would be useless, if there was no threat of force to back it up, right?

The US constitution places treaties above any ordinary US law, treaties, of course, that have been ratified by the Senate. Which, of course, rules out the Geneva Conventions, which were never ratified by the Senate

and saying something is legal, while immoral, is hardly defending it. it's legal for me to have sex with your wife (with her permission, of course) but that's hardly moral, right? see how there's a difference?

"war crime" is a specific legal term, like "speeding" is a specific term. in order to say someone is speeding, you need to demonstrate that they were operating a motor vehicle in excess of the posted speed limit at a specific time and place, right? and in order to say someone committed a 'war crime' you need to demonstrate that someone violated a specific law of war in a specific time and place. Yes, it matters. By Ms. Sheehan's definition of 'killing civilians' as applied to Iraq, every war has been a war crime. That's simply not good legal reasoning, and I will criticize bad logical thinking, even if she is your idol, by someone who claims to want to be elected to the House of Representatives.

so let me clarify, once again: this was is immoral and wrong, it is not, from my reading of the relevant articles, illegal. If that is what you consider 'defending' something, then, well, wow.

[LSK]

84. was the UN charter ratified by the Senate?

[northzax]

87. obviously

but then, the UN charter specifies that the Security Council can authorize the use of force to enfoce resolutions. so you'll need to do better than that.

[LSK]

90. the Security Council did not authorize the use of force

:shrug:

[proud2BlibKansan]

88. Amen!!

What board am I on here? Sheesh.

[CreekDog]

101. People aren't defending the war, they are correcting errors

...that Sheehan made in her statement.

And one can correct the record in regards to the war without being pro-war.

And one can be anti-Sheehan without being pro war.

And one can argue with you without being pro war.

And one can argue with Proud2blib and still be a liberal member of Democratic Underground.

So, get over yourselves.

[pschoeb]

54. OK I'll bite, here is what CIndy is saying

Cindy said

"Not only is it a war crime to aggressively and egregiously invade a country pre-emptively"

This is correct, this a "Crime against Peace" under the Nuremberg Principles which were incorporated into the UN charter, it is considered a crime against customary international law, it is usually classified as a war crime of the most serious level, though some call it the "supreme international crime" instead of war crime, though unfortunately there are no rules to prosecute for it, except through the actions of the Security Council(unlikely as the US and Britain are permanent members with veto power). Article 51 requires an actual attack, to be invoked.

The Security Council did not authorize invasion by the US and Britain in Iraq, and previous Security Council resolutions did not constitute consent to US and Britain's Invasion of Iraq. I don't think anyone believes that the US and Britain fulfilled the criteria to use force under article 51.

Richard Perle conceded that the invasion was illegal, but justified. The determination on how to enforce Security Council resolutions is up to the Security Council, not individual nations, as such is a clear violation of the very basic intent of the UN Charter.

Cindy said
"but during an occupation it is against Geneva Conventions to kill innocent civilians and not provide for their basic human needs of food, shelter, medical care and security."

This is correct, What part is wrong here?

[northzax]

93. well your first part is an argument

that can certainly be made. the second one is less relevant, because the US is not party to that particular Geneva Convention, so it does not apply to us.

[conscious evolution]

125. Does not matter that

we are not party to that Convention.
Once again-The Nuremberg Principles.
Principle I
Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment.
Principle II
The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.

It does not matter how'legal' they say the war is the fact of the matter is that it is an illegal war no matter how one spins it and those responsible are liable.

[pschoeb]

134. It's not an argument, "agressive war" is a war crime

Unfortunately it is not currently a prosecutable crime, except by action of the Security Council, but what she said was factually correct, wars of aggression are classified as a war crimes or the supreme international crime.

Um, yes the US is a party to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, harming innocent civilians is prohibited, and not making provisions for providing sufficient basic needs like food, water, shelter and medicine while occupying a territory, would constitute negligent homicide and cruel treatment. Also by correct reading of the conventions, many persons who live in areas where movement is strictly controlled, would be considered "interned" by the 1949 Conventions and subject to it's conventions on civilian internees. Just because something is in the 1977 addendum or later, which the US has signed but not ratified, but can still be held responsible for, does not mean these protections were not in the earlier 1949 Conventions.

from 1949 Geneva Conventions

"1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."

[proud2BlibKansan]

95. Here's what's wrong with it:

Cindy said it. She is the devil incarnate so anything she says is wrong. :sarcasm:

[CreekDog]

126. Proud you're the only one that called cindy the devil here

Or other bad names.

[conscious evolution]

69. Chapter and verse right here.

The Nuremberg Principles.

Principle I
Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment.


Principle II
The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.


Principle III
The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.


Principle IV
The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.


Principle V
Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.


Principle VI
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
(b) War Crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation of slave labor or for any other purpose of the civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
(c) Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.

Principle VII
Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.

The Nuremberg Principles were recognized as international law by the UN after the WWII war crimes tribunals.They were the legal basis by which the nazi leadership was tried.

[northzax]

86. ok, now cite specific examples of violations

you highlight 'murder' so let's hear about George Bush either ordering the extralegal murder of civilians or ignoring evidence that such a thing was occurring, and refused to allow for the prosecution of such crimes. murder, in wartime, is also a specific legal term. you need to show that Bush basically ordered the deliberate murder of civilians. prove it.

in fact, prove any of them. you could make a legitimate, if immoral and ugly, argument that Fallujah was a military necessity.

so you cited a law, now detail incidents in which George Bush ordered that law broken, refused to punish people when he learned the law had been broken, or was otherwise deliberately negligent.

[LSK]

104. shock and awe

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neDgVb9YHcA

[personman]

150. Aside from being the very definition of terrorism...nt

[conscious evolution]

116. Revenge for dead mercenaries is not a military necessity.

Poor highlighting on my part.
Read Principle VI and VII. in their entirety.
He does not have to have specific knowledge or direct responcibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity being committed.He only has to be complicit in the war to be held resposible.And seeing how he took part in 'Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;',a crime against peace, it would be hard for him to argue against such charges.

[pschoeb]

136. The invasion itself violates Principle IV part A1

"(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances."

Since the US did not have UN Security Council approval, and did not meet the requirements of Article 51 of the UN Charter. Richard Perle himself has stated the invasion was illegal in regards to the UN charter. Therefore the invasion was a war in violation of international treaties, which as stated in Principle IV part A1 of the Nuremberg Principles is a "crime against peace" or a war crime, and the most severe one at that.

[personman]

143. I'm not exactly a legal scholar here...

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

In 1950, the Nuremberg Tribunal defined Crimes against Peace (in Principle VI.a, submitted to the United Nations General Assembly) as

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

During the trial, the chief American prosecutor, Robert H. Jackson, stated:

To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, 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.

I happen to think the bombing of Iraqi infrastructure and sanctions could count as indiscriminate killing of civilians.

[bluedog]

4. 7 days left

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has 7 more days to put impeachment back on the table. Very few people on these blogs recognize the fact that it's not my fault that Ms. Pelosi is not doing her job.


then Cindy will announce her run.............. will she then be off DU?

[ClintonTyree]

5. We can only hope.

n/t

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. Cindy isn't a member here

She is already off DU.

But if you don't like threads about her, no one is forcing you to reply. And if you think that her candidacy will result in threads about her work being banned here at DU, then we need to ban all the threads about all the candidates from the republican party. See, the rule is we can't PROMOTE other candidates. There is no rule saying we can't discuss them.

[Cameron27]

40. I haven't seen a discussion about a candidate

for the republican party, where anyone is jumping up and supporting them. There's a fine line here that I guess the mods are going to have to make some judgments on.

[proud2BlibKansan]

109. I take it you haven't read many Ron Paul threads.

[proud2BlibKansan]

7. I posted this and it got zero replies

:cry:

[Madspirit]

9. k&r...n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. Maybe not a "war crime" but certainly a crime against humanity.

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy.” - Gandhi

[bonito]

15. K&R

I support Cindy.

[CreekDog]

21. I support ending the war, I DON'T support Cindy

The two are not mutually exclusive.

[creeksneakers2]

18. I resent her attitude

Everybody wants the war to be over. Cindy acts like she's a saint and only she knows how bad the war is and what to do.

"I would hazard a guess that not too many of these people have a child, parent or spouse in Iraq or have any heart-connection with our brothers and sisters who are being wiped off the face of Mesopotamia so BushCo can control their oil and so that the war profiteers who line the pockets of Democrats and Republicans alike can reap Midas-like fortunes."

Either Cindy is slandering everybody else to make herself look like a heroic saint, or Cindy ought to be more specific. I'd like to see a list with specific information about which Democrats are having their pockets lined with "Midas-like fortunes." I'd like to know when, where, all that kind of stuff.

[bluedog]

31. maybe we don't have our families in Iraq

but we had them in Nam, when they had no choice but to serve cause they were drafted! So we do know what it is like!

[proud2BlibKansan]

138. Diane Feinstein

Feinstein's husband Richard Blum has racked in millions of dollars from Perini, a civil infrastructure construction company, of which the billionaire investor wields a 75 percent voting share.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12106.htm

[creeksneakers2]

139. One name isn't a list

Cindy accused everybody. She needs more than one name to back that up.

[proud2BlibKansan]

149. You asked I answered

Interesting you apparently can't defend Feinstein.

[creeksneakers2]

151. You can't prove Feinstein

wants to wait around until January 9, 2009 as Cindy accuses.

TAKE A LOOKIE

U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein's Statement on the War in Iraq
Tuesday, July 17, 2007

The question I hear repeated is: Do we change course now or do we wait until September? I have heard distinguished Members of this body say: Why not wait until September? I believe the answer is clear. When you know things are moving in the wrong direction, why wait to act? And a growing majority in the Senate agrees.
(SNIP)
This is why we need a change in course. And these are not isolated incidents. They are not the exception. They are the norm, day in, day out. Every day there is more -- more bombings, more shootings, more IEDs, more kidnappings, more death squads.
(SNIP)
Yet we are told to wait. Something good might happen. So what should we do? Rather than wait another 8 weeks, I think we should act now. I think the Senate should approve the Levin-Reed amendment, which, to date, is the only amendment, as the majority leader has stated so often, with teeth –- in 120 days redeployment begins, and out by April 30th of next year. It is clear, it is definitive, and it has the support of a majority of this body.

[proud2BlibKansan]

152. You asked I answered

In case you forgot, here is your statement:

"I'd like to see a list with specific information about which Democrats are having their pockets lined with "Midas-like fortunes.""

[creeksneakers2]

155. One name is not a list

its an anecdote

[BlooInBloo]

24. This member of the "party of slavery" humbly thanks Sheehan for her observation...

... but it's unnecessary, as I am a fluent speaker of Obvious.

[SidDithers]

49. .

:applause:
:toast:

Sid

[LittleClarkie]

51. Wish we could recommend posts

:hi:

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[northzax]

35. aw, did someone's mother not cuddle them enough?

you have a lot of anger in you, I sense. let it go, let it go.

[helderheid]

36. Welcome to DU - enjoy your short stay.

[Swamp Rat]

39. Why aren't you in Iraq? ..... SUPPORT THE TROOPS!!!

ENLIST TODAY!

If you don't enlist today, it means YOU HATE THE TROOPS AND AMERICA!!!

NO EXCUSES!!!

[Psyop Samurai]

38. Organized, satanic murder is NOT a crime!!!!!

You can't prove it!! So nya nya!!

And Cindy's a POOPY HEAD!! She said mean things about us! She must be destroyed!!!

We ARE NOT complicit. It's THEM - those STUPID PEOPLE.
____________

...with apologies to babylonsister.

[LittleClarkie]

42. Wouldn't every soldier in every war be a war criminal then?

?

[LSK]

45. K&R

The Cindy bashing here makes me sick.

[Swamp Rat]

52. I know Skinner doesn't like it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=992236

There is a pattern developing here, and I hope the Admin does something about it.

[LittleClarkie]

56. I wish I knew what he thought now

Since she's lost some support here. Much has changed since May.

[Swamp Rat]

58. Why don't you strart a thread asking Skinner what he thinks now?

[LittleClarkie]

61. That would be a ridiculous thread to start. That's not how to communicate with Skinner

It's better to email him.

[Swamp Rat]

64. YOU are the one who wanted to know, so YOU email Skinner.

I already know what he thinks. He's upset with people here who bash Cindy Sheehan:


Dear Cindy:

My name is David Allen, and I am the lead administrator of Democratic Underground. Like the vast majority of people here on DU, I was surprised and dismayed to learn of your resignation as the public face of the anti-war movement. Even more upsetting to me is the fact that apparently a post here on my website was one of the reasons for your decision.

I am going to try to keep this note relatively brief. I cannot match the eloquence of your public statement, or the eloquence of the many people on Democratic Underground and elsewhere who have asked you to reconsider. My intent is merely to add my voice to the huge chorus of people who believe you are a vital voice in the anti-war movement. As the administrator of Democratic Underground I would like the opportunity to provide a little bit of context with regard the offending post referenced in your resignation letter. Having read your statement, I know that the post here on DU was not the only reason you made the decision you did, but it seems that that post may have been the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.

The most important thing I think you should know is this: The vast majority of DU members support you and your efforts to bring an end to this terrible war. That has been true for as long as you have been fighting to end it -- as you know from the many DUers who stood with you at Camp Casey and elsewhere. It remains true today.

I understand how frustrating it is to give your heart and soul to something, and then get personally insulted for it. It is even worse when those insults come from people who are supposed to be our friends and allies. I am not going to provide an excuse or justification for that ugly post -- the person who posted it does not in any way speak for me or most of people on this website. But I am also not going to lie to you and tell you that it was posted by a troll. As far as I can tell, the person who posted it is a legitimate member of this site. (As an aside, the specific language used was not acceptable under the rules of this website, and the post in question was deleted by the moderators for that reason.)

Democratic Underground is not like all those other blogs, where one person (or a small group of people) regularly sets the tone by articulating the "official" point of view. I sometimes share my opinions, but I only do so occasionally, and I don't think of myself as a blogger or pundit. I think of myself as more of a "referee" between different factions. As a discussion forum, we see our mission as different from that of a traditional blog. Rather than requiring that DUers champion a particular viewpoint, I believe our members are best served by permitting a (relatively) wide range of opinion. That includes many viewpoints that I disagree with, and the majority of our members disagree with.

When you made it clear that you were going to challenge Democrats as aggressively as you challenge Republicans, you knew that many Democrats would not support your efforts. Likewise, it was inevitable that some here on DU would not support such efforts. You are a public figure, and as such the rules of this website permit our members to criticize you, just as our rules permit members to criticize Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid. If anything, such criticism shows that you are making a difference. You are being criticized because what you do matters. If your goal is to change the direction of this country, then there are worse things than being criticized by a small number of anonymous keyboard commandos on the Intertubes. Far worse that you be ignored.

If you simply cannot go on any longer, and you feel you must resign, then you have my understanding and my gratitude for everything you have done to fight against this terrible war. You have already done way more than anyone to help bring an end to the war in Iraq. You have earned your place in history, and you have earned the right to step aside if you feel you must.

But if you feel you still have some fight left in you, if you feel that you can still keep going, then I hope that you will do so. The anti-war movement, the country, and the world need people like you. Please do not let the criticisms of a few people get you down.

With heartfelt thanks,

David Allen
Democratic Underground

[LittleClarkie]

65. I meant the rhetorical "you" not YOU you

So I edited it to make it clearer.

I wonder what he thinks about an independent run and being identified as the party of slavery and war. Perhaps I will email him.

[Lerkfish]

67. there are times when a thread here will agree with Pat Buchanan

because he says a certain thing, without endorsing him or his republican roots.
If that is allowed, I see no reason why someone cannot discuss nor agree with something Sheehan says on this board without endorsing a political party.

[LittleClarkie]

74. Oh, I'm not saying that. But it should also be allowed that one can disagree too

without being called a hater.

I'm looking for an open debate is all.

[Lerkfish]

77. ok, then I agree with you.

I think valid criticism should not be labeled "hating".

[CreekDog]

113. Those you are addressing don't want a reasoned debate

Or else they would be debating you through reason rather than invective.

I've been there. I got into a big dustup over what the Geneva Convention actually said (same war crime issue) and the poster I was discussing this with said they didn't want to debate it because I was trying to control that person through debate.

And the question that raised the ruckus? I asked what part of the Geneva Conventions say that the Iraq War is a war crime and cite the text in your answer.

Instead of an answer I got the harangue that they don't want to debate me anymore.

But the arguments continue and they continue to offer them and refuse to back their statements up with evidence or citation.

I'm proud of being liberal. I would never be proud of making erroneous statements.

[Swamp Rat]

68. Ah, ok.

"You email him." sounded like a demand.

Please let us know how he responds to the "independent run" and "party of slavery and war" rhetoric.

[CreekDog]

105. The sentiment turned against Sheehan when two things happened

She railed against Democratic Underground as a whole.

She decided to run against Pelosi as an independent.

And do you really know what Mr. Allen thinks of Sheehan's latest actions? Wasn't that message from him after she resigned from DU? A lot of us changed our minds about Sheehan well after her resignation from DU and in fact, upon her decision (sort of decision) to run against Pelosi as an independent and her statements calling the party a "party of slavery".

Some things have changed since she left DU and those things make her less appealing to many Democrats, not more.

[LittleClarkie]

75. Can you explain what you mean by "pattern"?

I suspect unless things get uncivil that not much will be done.

[proud2BlibKansan]

112. Me too Swamp Rat

Something needs to be done. We can't have a simple conversation about Cindy without attacks. I am about over this shit. I was hoping they would give us a group so we could avoid this crap. Damn. Some progressive community we got here.

[CreekDog]

118. Create Sheehanunderground.com

And the people you are arguing with have not been "bashing" Sheehan.

But her positions and statements are not above reproach and neither are yours.

If you or her are wrong, expect that someone will correct you.

[proud2BlibKansan]

121. It's one thing to debate

It's another entirely to come into every single thread where her name is mentioned and call her horrible names. It's the thread jacking I have a problem with. We can't even have a reasonable conversation about Cindy. She hasn't even declared her candidacy yet and she is being trashed here worse than some republicans get trashed here.

[CreekDog]

129. Proud: Almost nobody here is calling Sheehan names

Yet despite your complaints, you referred to another poster as hating Cindy.

So, why don't you take your own advice and stop with the name calling and ad hominem attacks. It's clear you don't like them used against you or others you support, then don't use them against people you disagree with or don't support.

[proud2BlibKansan]

154. There has been a steady stream of attacks on her for the last 10 days

Now kindly show me where I called any DUer a name.

[Dinger]

140. Swamp Rat, You Must Have Been Reading My Mind

I don't know how I missed Skinner's thread, but I did. Wish I could give it a belated k & r. Thanks for posting it, and a belated thank you to Skinner!

[LittleClarkie]

60. There is some honest to God bashing, like calling her a whore or saying she's stupid

I just wish the honest criticism didn't get lumped in with the bashing, and that people didn't resort to a Republican tactic of calling people who criticize her "haters".

Civilly stated criticism is one thing, insults and bashing are another. One should be allowed to do the first without being called haters, or being told they have no right to speak unless they've lost a child and know the pain. Everyone has a right to speak. I mean, I've never been the President, but I criticize the current job holder.

The honest to God bashing is indeed rather rude, and when it goes beyond the pale, I alert on it.

[BlooInBloo]

72. Like one would expect any better from the party of slavery.

[LSK]

73. dont forget The Federal Reserve, permanent federal income taxes, Japanese Concentration Camps, etc

:eyes:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/9/92356/44191

[BlooInBloo]

76. Indeed. Let her hit-and-run words never be forgotten.

[LSK]

81. yes because half of DU can have similar rants but she cannot be forgiven

:eyes:

[BlooInBloo]

103. 1/2 of DU isn't trying to speak for others.

[LSK]

108. ok, now you lost me

Who is she speaking for?

[BlooInBloo]

111. Are you serious? Um, running for office is attempting to speak for people. Duh.

[northzax]

89. well since the original thing was likely directed at me

and I am the first person to post criticisms of people who use that sort of language about, well, anyone, but particularly Ms. Sheehan, I'm not concerned. I try to do this particularly so that when people see my criticisms of something Ms. Sheehan said, did or wrote, they will see that it is criticism of that action or word, not Ms. Sheehan herself, who I don't know, and therefore am in no position to criticize personally.

Still, if any criticism is therefore personal criticism, it makes the political personal, and that is dangerous. Ms. Sheehan is not a deity, she is a human who voluntarily entered the public sphere, therefore her actions and words are open to criticism. Such is the way of the world. All you can do is make sure that you, yourself, are remaining above the personal, and remind those that sink into it that it is beyond the pale.

[BlooInBloo]

127. You must've missed the memo: IOKIYCS.

[LittleClarkie]

131. No, not directed at you in particular

just in general

[pberq]

70. Thank you Cindy!

[conscious evolution]

78. Cindy is still speaking for me.

Our goverment IS composed of war criminals.

[Yukari Yakumo]

117. So you agree with what she said in my sig?

In that case, leave.

At this point, any and all support for Cindy should be declared a direct violation of Rule #2.

[conscious evolution]

132. Not going any where.

I only disagree with one word.
We were the party of slavery.
But we changed.
Thats what happens when liberals are in charge.We try to make the world a better place and correct injustice.
Cindy Sheehan is right on far to many of the issues for me to be upset over one word.

[RestoreGore]

79. So does that make our troops war criminals?

Not disputing that shock and awe was a crime because while it may come as a surprise to Ms. Sheehan, many of us have read about the Geneva Conventions and know our history... I'm just asking if she then thinks that since it is a war crime that those who went there and are carrying out the orders are war criminals as well.

[Lerkfish]

85. Since her son was one of those people, I doubt it.

you know, her SON? the one who DIED?

sheesh.


any more strawmen to toss up?

[RestoreGore]

98. Anymore BS snarky responses?

If you can't answer the question like an adult, don't bother next time. My mom died when I was only seventeen of cancer and she suffered with it for many years before that, and my dad died of the same thing just a few years ago, and a cousin I was close to just a few months ago, so guess what, she doesn't corner the market on grief either. I and many others know what it is like to lose someone we loved with all of our heart and soul in times of war and not, and I once respected her for that until she decided she was owed more than anyone else who went through it and that the rest of us needed to be GUILTED about it everytime we dared to ask a question of her. And you know what, screw that. No wonder I have had no compunction to post here the last few days because of the responses to legitimate questions from the attack dogs.

[Lerkfish]

114. wtf? I'm supposed to feel sorry for you?

I've lost everyone in my family, including wife and child, parents, grandparents, and I'm a cancer survivor....what does that have to do with anything? If you think I"m an attack dog for being sarcastic about pointing out the obvious, then I guess I'm an attack dog.

I"m making the point that she likely does not consider the soldiers themselves war criminals because her son was one of those soldiers. A lot of people seem to forget why she got involved in this in the first place. I was trying to remind you of what her circumstances were and why your OWN snarky question was inappropriate.

If you want to blame me for your not posting, dude, find a better excuse.

[RestoreGore]

130. Who are you to judge what questions are inappropriate?

And no, I don't need you to feel sorry for me, I made that comment as a comparison because I'm tired of being told her son died as if I am not allowed to make a comment in regards to her own comments because her grief so far surpasses anyone else in history. My question was also not inappropriate in context to her comments... but of course, her worshippers here must speak for her here and elsewhere because she doesn't have a thick enough skin to answer questions herself. And I wasn't blaming you per se, just the general mood of some of these threads.

[Lerkfish]

135. I'm the guy whose question you judged inappropriate

funny, huh?

[northzax]

100. the soldier who illegally invaded a foreign country?

yup.

your choice is as follows: if the invasion was illegal, then everyone who participated in said invasion is a war criminal. "I was just following orders" is not a legal defense to a war crimes charge. If her son stepped foot on Iraqi soil, he, too, was a war criminal. YOU CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. he may have been a low level war criminal who is not worth prosecuting, but unless he was forced into Iraq at the point of a bayonet, he could have refused to enter (and gone to jail, certainly, but that's the price for civil disobedience) every argument concerning how the invasion was illegal was relevant at the time that Casey Sheehan entered into Iraq. He was 'just following orders' when he contributed to the deaths of 100,000 Iraqis. Think the dead and orphans care about that?

see, here's the law morality thing again. I don't hold him morally responsible, but the law would, if applied as posted above, hold him legally responsible.

tell me why I am wrong.

[Dave From Canada]

115. You're wrong because the war wasn't illegal. It was wrong, but wrong does not equal illegal.

[northzax]

144. this has been my point the entire thread

but if, in fact, the war is illegal, as Ms. Sheehan says it is, then it applies down the chain of command. You would have a tough time making the argument that you participated under duress in the current circumstances, don't you think?

[Lerkfish]

119. um, you're wrong because I was answering how I thought Sheehan might answer the question...

you know, the other poster said would sheehan consider the soldiers war criminals also, and I said I doubted it.

er....not really sure why that's so difficult to understand.

[northzax]

146. so you concede the logical fallacy of her point?

interesting.

[Dave From Canada]

123. Good question and a very logical inference from her stance.

[KAT119]

124. RIGHT ON, DEAR CINDY, THANK YOU!!! K&R

[Rwalsh]

128. By Sheehan's logic,

Clinton and the first Bush are also war criminals. Civilians were killed in the first Gulf War, Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo.

Or am I missing something?

[conscious evolution]

133. Gulf War I was a war crime.

Bosnia and Kosovo were wars to stop crimes against humanity.
Somalia-I plead ignorance as to what category it falls under.

[Lilith Velkor]

147. "If the Nuremburg laws applied, every postwar American president would have been hanged."

--Noam Chomsky

[Lars39]

156. Dubya and his bunch *deliberately* did an end-run around the Geneve Conventions.

[lonestarnot]

145. Killing Iraqi kids so we can make friends with their Moms and Dads.

So hearts and minds of the pugs obstructing a draw down of troops.

[Imagevision]

148. Cindy, you make a great deal of sense to me and you have my support 110%...