There was an International War Tribunal held for Iraq War I

[Robbien]

In February 1991, Ramsey Clark visited Iraq during the height of allied bombing. He did not see a pretty sight. Clark returned with much videotape and tales of horror of Iraq’s civilian population being bombed, despite the U.S. government’s denial. No videotape was shown on U.S. television and Clark’s message went unheard and unseen.

. . .

For the next nine months, Clark and various members of the Commission traveled worldwide to gather further evidence of war crimes. The results were overwhelming. People came forward to give evidence of atrocities perpetrated against Iraq’s population, its military, the environment, and citizens of other countries. Whenever the Commission took evidence, whether in Europe, Asia, Africa or the Middle East, the media of many countries were in attendance. Despite the large attendance at meetings, the U.S. media were absent.

On February 29, 1992, in New York City, the International War Crimes Tribunal convened to try George Bush, Dan Qualye, James Baker, Dick Cheney, William Webster, Colin Powell, Norman Schwarzkopf and others on 19 charges of crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and other criminal acts and high crimes. The Martin Luther King High School auditorium was filled to capacity (more than 1,500) and many others lined up outside to hear the proceedings over loudspeakers. The broadcast media of various countries carried the trial live, but, despite the attendance and international coverage, the event was totally ignored by the U.S. press.

The panel consisted of 21 people from assorted countries and it ruled on the following 19 counts:

http://uruknet.info/?p=m35916&s1=h1

The counts are pretty damning. Very much worth clicking through and giving them a read.

We were found unanimously guilty on all 19 counts.

The author, Malcom Lagauche, investigated why this was not discussed in US media:

Three major wire services (AP, UPI and Reuters) were given much information from the Tribunal. UPI admitted to receiving the information, but could not verify if it was sent over the wires. Reuters did send the story. According to Art Spiegleman of Reuters, "We sent out the story a couple of days before it (the trial) took place."

At least two of the three major wire services announced the War Crimes Tribunal, leaving the media one less excuse for not running the story. Paul Ahuja was the press director for the Tribunal. He mentioned some publications that did not cover the story because of its controversial nature. Ahuja recalled a conversation with Sidney Schanberg of Newsday in which Schanberg told him, "I can’t cover this story. I’d get fired."

The New York Times was just as squeamish. Staff at the publication told Ahuja, "This story is editorial suicide."

Ramsey Clark was critical of the press coverage of Desert Storm and the lack of coverage of the Tribunal. He said, "The press has totally defaulted. It began with Grenada." His reference of Grenada alluded to the U.S. government’s blackout of press coverage of the invasion of the island by U.S. forces in 1983. Clark added, "They (the press) complained for a while, but they soon forgot."

As the article points out:

Schwarzkopf said it all on the day after the cease-fire. At a press conference, he laughed as he told the journalists, "You printed everything just the way we said it."

http://uruknet.info/?p=m35916&s1=h1

A war tribunal was held resulting in our officials being found guilty. Our media didn't report and the international community let the matter drop.

[NNN0LHI]

1. "You printed everything just the way we said it."

Shocking.

Don

[HereSince1628]

2. Well, a "trial" by an anti-war group.

That detail seems to have been left out of the story.

http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-preface.htm

"The Commission of Inquiry for an International War Crimes Tribunal was initiated by Ramsey Clark and the Coalition to Stop U.S. Intervention in the Middle East following Mr. Clark's February trip to Iraq."

[Robbien]

4. Since it was held by a Peace movement group it doesn't count?

Since when do Peace movements become organizations which are spit upon and marginalized?

[Frogger]

6. They are not

legal authorities, the only ones who have the right and the power to have serious trials or tribunals.

The problem with the left generally, and the peace movement in particular, is their inclination to take serious issues and turn them into theater. Thus, all their arguments, and they have many serious and legitimate ones, are trivialized, even laughed at.

[HereSince1628]

7. Well two points...

The first is that in all honesty the trial truly doesn't matter much. Its outcome was unrecognized by governments/international coalitions (the UN, European Union, etc) and was unenforcable. Thus it was of little to no consequence to the premeditation of potential future criminals (like Richard Cheney and George W. Bush).

Second, to me, the article is only a propaganda piece that misrepresents history. It attempts to inflate what was at best essentially an act of public education to the status of a real international war crimes trial, resulting in a condemnation of the United States for ignoring the outcome of the "court."

[KharmaTrain]

3. Two Things Stand In The Way Now

150,000 American troops on Iraqi soil combined with the still large financial influence of the United States that this regime has used as pawns and weapons since this war for profit began. While public opinion and many foreign governments are outraged by the attrocities and war crimes that have taken place, the current situation has put any real international condemnation of this regime on ice. It's just not "good business" that could cost dollars and other perks this regime tosses around under the table.

Next is veto power. Even if the UN or World Court would want to investigate war crimes (Abu Graihb should be grounds enough), many see a US veto as the end-result, just like many see a 67 Senate vote to convict and remove as a similar veto...as long as Cheney controls that veto, an investigation will be stonewalled as well. The best results will be when this regime is disgraced and removed and its power of both the veto and the purse is gone.

Right now the list of war crimes are being documented...and surely the evidence is overwhelming. I also know of some suits that are moving along in European courts that could form a momentum to get the World Court to act..but act is must. Also, I don't see why the first Iraq invasion can't be dovetailed onto this mess...don't the chickenhawks consider this just the contiunation of that war anyway?

[Frogger]

5. the reason no one paid attention

is that it wasn't a real tribunal. It had no power, nor legal authority, and came to a preordained conclusion. It was, in short, a political trick and recognized and treated as one.

The above doesn't mean the conclusion were wrong, just that this was a frivolous PR stunt, rather than a serious investigation, and was treated as one.