Should the unwilling be charged with war crimes?

[zoofer]

Should the coalition of the unwilling be charged with war crimes?
Specifically "Cowardice in the face of the enemy. AWOL or absent without leave, dereliction of duty?"
Some quotes from Canada's greatest Peacekeeper General.

Protect the innocents -- or stop gloating
Lewis MacKenzie
National Post
Tuesday, December 30, 2003.
.
.
Prior to the war, the majority of Canadians outside Quebec were pretty well evenly split in their support of U.S.-led military intervention in Iraq, if the United Nations Security Council couldn't make up its mind about what to do after Saddam's 12 years of defying UN resolutions. Now that the rebuilding role in Iraq has become difficult, dangerous and expensive, particularly for the United States, over 75% of Canadians claim they are glad we didn't participate in the war alongside our historical allies, the United States, Britain and Australia. In some cases the shift in attitude has evolved to gloating, most evident when our recently departed prime minister indicated that his greatest accomplishment this past year was not supporting the U.S.-led intervention in Iraq.

Join me, if you will, at the United Nations General Assembly on the occasion of the opening of its 58th session -- Sept. 23, a mere three months ago. A distinguished Canadian is speaking: "The most fundamental duty of a state is to protect its people. When a government cannot -- or will not -- do so; the responsibility to protect them becomes temporarily a collective international responsibility. We [Canadians] believe ... that in the face of large-scale loss of life or ethnic cleansing, the international community has a moral responsibility to protect the vulnerable. The primary purpose must be to avert and end human suffering. No entity is more appropriate than the UN Security Council to authorize military action to protect the innocent. But the member states of the Council have sometimes failed the innocent."

Listening on my car radio to this compelling call to arms on behalf of the innocent victims of the world I felt pride as a Canadian and somewhat dangerously, considering the traffic around me, applauded the speaker -- Jean Chretien.

Hypocrisy is not foreign to politics; however, this example is too blatant to ignore or accept. "Member states of the Council have sometimes failed the innocent." Now there is an understatement. Just ask the victims of Somalia, Rwanda, Srebrenica, Sierra Leone (before British intervention) and the Congo to start with. Virtually every major crisis the Security Council has faced since the end of the Cold War has been a disaster characterized by inadequate direction, command and control, material and personnel resources and financing. The national self-interests of the five permanent members of the Council were never in sync and the resulting, lowest common-denominator UN resolutions were merely sufficient to address the need to, "do something" -- but that something was never enough to protect the innocents.

"We believe that in the face of large-scale loss of life or ethnic cleansing, the international community has a moral responsibility to protect the vulnerable." Sounds good to me. Presumably, our departed PM believes what he said because in 1999 he proudly rushed to join the non-UN-sanctioned air war against a sovereign nation, the former Yugoslavia, which was engaged in a civil war with an independence movement within one of its provinces. He and I might disagree over what caused the ethnic cleansing, but he lived up to his stated philosophy by joining in to protect the designated innocent victims.

Considering Mr. Chretien's words at the UN how could he justify taking the lead in turning Canada's back on a country where, by conservative estimates, Saddam's regime slaughtered more than 300,000 of his own people during the past decade? Some estimates indicate a million innocents were sacrificed as the UN dithered and debated while Saddam did what he did best. Unlike Kosovo, where the cries of genocide and mass graves were used to justify intervention but little evidence of either has been found, new discoveries of mass graves in Iraq are a regular occurrence. By any definition, Saddam's regime was conducting a policy of genocide against selected groups of his own population and by Mr. Chretien's own criteria qualified to receive the wrath of the international community. The UN would never have done it so someone else had to take the lead, and did.
.
.
I just wish so many of my fellow Canadians would stop gloating over the fact that we avoided doing something good that turned out to be difficult and dangerous. It is unbefitting our proud history of, "protecting the innocents."

In my opinion the UN leadership and other two faced members should be charged with war crimes. Dereliction of duty, cowardice and AWOL.

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: War Crimes for UN

zoofer, would that not, however, be a dangerous precedent? Accusing someone of being "two-faced" is a very subjective accusation, and I would suggest that a nation should never be subjected to persecution for having decided by democratic means not to go enter into an armed intervention. I would suggest that each situation is unique, and that they should be assessed as such.

 

[aeon]

In my opinion the UN leadership and other two faced members should be charged with war crimes. Dereliction of duty, cowardice and AWOL.

Those who should be brought for war crime in this case, is the reagan administration who supported saddam with biological weapons during the 80s, when saddam killed 5500 kurds, no us officials has done and said something against saddam, not even a single us media did anything.

The 5 permament members should also be brought for war crimes, for the 13 years of united nations sanctions, which has killed 1.5 millions of innoncent peoples.

 

[Colpy]

In my opinion the UN leadership and other two faced members should be charged with war crimes. Dereliction of duty, cowardice and AWOL.

Those who should be brought for war crime in this case, is the reagan administration who supported saddam with biological weapons during the 80s, when saddam killed 5500 kurds, no us officials has done and said something against saddam, not even a single us media did anything.

The 5 permament members should also be brought for war crimes, for the 13 years of united nations sanctions, which has killed 1.5 millions of innoncent peoples.

This post is absolute baloney.

First of all, Saddam killed tens of thousands of Kurds, probably around 35,000.

Secondly, he did not use biological weapons, he used chemical weapons.

Third, components for such weapons did NOT come from the USA, but from (believe it or not) GERMANY. (you'd think they'd know better)

As for the 1.5 million dead.....those figures come from the Iraqi government.......who is TOTALLY responsible for any deaths, considering they were making billions from oil-for-food....certainly enough so Saddam could build THIRTY-TWO palaces. He could have used this money to save his people, if necessary.

That post was the most BS I've ever seen packed into a small place.

 

[tracy]

I think this whole thread is full of BS from both sides.

 

[zoofer]

Tracy!

Moi????????????? 8O

 

[pastafarian]

Third, components for such weapons did NOT come from the USA

Yes, they did.

Just before the 1991 Gulf War, this writer discovered a group of British scientific technicians in Baghdad who had been “seconded” to Iraq by the British Ministry of Defense and the Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, to help Baghdad develop biological weapons. The British technicians were based at the secret biowarfare complex at Salman Pak where they were developing anthrax, botulism and possibly Q-fever for Saddam’s military – with the full knowledge and support of the British and American governments. Other British scientists were developing poison gas for Iraq. They showed me documents confirming that the feeder stocks for Iraq’s germ weapons had been supplied by the United States.

Eric Margolis

Also before the Gulf War, Iraq took delivery on billions of dollars of equipment "useful for making mass destruction weapons" from companies operating in more than a dozen Western nations: Germany mostly, but also the United States, Britain, France, Austria, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and more, according to Iraq Watch, a research group affiliated with the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control.

This wasn't, of course, charity. There was money to be made. The group's analysis of U.S. exports that ended up in Iraq's nuclear weapons and long-range missile programs between 1985 and 1990 found that Unisys made $2.6-million, Semetex $5.1-million, Hewlett Packard $1.6-million and International Computer Systems $7.4-million.
"Much of what came from America went with the blessing of the U.S. Commerce Department, which approved the sale of more than $1.5-billion worth of dual-use goods," wrote Iraq Watch's Kelly Motz. "An honest assessment of the problem we face in Iraq is that we are still trying to rectify our past indiscretions. The fact that U.S. troops may one day lay down their lives to destroy these exports is the price we may have to pay."

Of course, as Dr. Cattani suggested, much has changed in the last 15 years. These transactions happened before Iraq invaded Kuwait; before Iraq in defeat agreed to disclose and destroy its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs; and long before anthrax became a household word as still-unsolved mailings killed six people and emptied congressional offices in the fall of 2001.

"All I can say to you is that Iraq was an ally of the United States in the 1980s," said Wysocki of American Type Culture Collection. "The Department of Commerce approved all requests for shipments of biological samples requested by Iraq, made from ATCC, and that is the law."
But even then the United States, if not its scientific supply houses, had strong and growing reason to know that Hussein was dangerous.

According to Germs, the authoritative bioweapons book by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists Judith Miller, Stephen Engelberg and William Broad, a classified study produced by the Armed Forces Medical Intelligence Center in June 1988 found Iraq "well on its way to building 'a bacteriological arsenal' under the cover of legitimate scientific research."

The report even noted that the Iraqis were at the time buying bacterial strains from American Type Culture Collection.

Sales of dual-use technology sanctioned by the Commerce Department should have raised red flags as well, said Motz of Iraq Watch.

"A number of those sales were going to known entities in Iraq. They sent them to places in Iraq where we knew exactly what they were working on. They were sending to known nuclear entities or known missile entities."

And harsher evidence of Hussein's intentions was not hard to find. Iraq had killed thousands of residents of the northern Iraqi town of Halabja with chemical weapons in March 1988, when the town was held by Iranian forces and Kurdish guerrillas. After initial denials, Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz admitted in July 1988 that Iraq had in fact used chemical weapons.

None of this was enough to stop the transactions with Iraq. The report of Sen. Riegle's committee says that on Sept. 29, 1988, American Type Culture Collection shipped 11 items to Iraq's Ministry of Trade, including four strains of anthrax bacteria.

www.sptimes.com/2003/03/16/news_pf/Perspective/How_Iraq_built_its_we.shtml+St.+Petersburg+Times+tom+drury+16+2003&hl=en&lr=&strip=1]St. Petersburg Times, published March 16, 2003
[/url]

There's lots more documentation. Look Here for other sources

The US gave Saddam money, arranged for firms in several countries to arm him and they provided him with many things he needed like "dual-use" materials, plans for chemical warfare manufacturing facilities and bioweapons cultures.

If he had been playing nice with them and giving them oil, he'd still be an ally no matter HOW many of his own people he was gassing mutilating or otherwise abusing, just like they have with Pinochet, Islam Karimov , Manuel Noriega, the Shah of Iran and the Saudi Royals.

 

[tracy]

Tracy!

Moi????????????? 8O

:lol: You know I love you hon, but that article contained some smelly bs. We have started using the "w" term so often that it's losing all meaning. No, George Bush shouldn't be charged with war crimes. No Bill Clinton shouldn't be charged with war crimes. No, Jean Chretien and Stephen Harper shouldn't be charged with war crimes. No, the security council shouldn't be charged with war crimes. If their unwillingness to invade Iraq to protect the innocent is a war crime then so is our failure to act in Darfur, Somalia, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, etc. and that would mean everyone would need to be charged (including the US and Canada).

I actually agree with the author that Canadians shouldn't gloat about how badly things are going in Iraq. At the same time, those who agree with the Iraq war shouldn't get on their high horses about protecting the innocent when that never mattered a damn to them until WMD couldn't be their justification for war anymore. Let's not forget who ran on a platform that rejected using the US military for nation building. I can't recall the last time a politician advocated war of this scale based solely on humanitarian concerns.

 

[I think not]

Good post tracy.

 

[I think not]

Interesting "facts" pastafarian, your list however is incomplete, allow me.

Germany
By far Germany had the largest role in Iraq’s WMD program. As part of Project 922, German firms such as Karl Kobe helped build Iraqi Chemical weapons facilities such as laboratories, bunkers, an administrative building, and first production buildings in the early 1980s under the cover of a pesticide plant. Other German firms sent 1,027 tons of precursors of Mustard, Sarin, Tabun, and Tear gasses in all. This work allowed Iraq to produce 150 tons of mustard agent and 60 tons of Tabun in 1983 and 1984 respectively, continuing throughout the decade. About 52% of Iraq’s international chemical weapon equipment was of German origin. Chemical weapons were used extensively against Iran by Iraq.

Five other German firms supplied equipment to manfacture botulin toxin and mycotoxin for germ warfare.

In 1988 German engineers presented centrifuge data that would help Iraq expand its nuclear weapons program. Laboratory equipment and other crucial information was provided, involving many German engineers.

France
France built Iraq’s Nuclear Osirak reactor in the late 1970s, but it was destroyed by Israeli jets in 1981. Later, a French company built a turnkey factory which helped make nuclear fuel.

France also provided glass-lined reactors, tanks, vessels, and columns used for the production of chemical weapons. Around 21% of Iraq’s international chemical weapon equipment was French. Strains of dual use biological material helped advance Iraq’s biological warfare program.

Switzerland
Swiss companies attempted to aid in Iraq’s nuclear weapons development in the form of specialized presses, milling machines, grinding machines, electrical discharge machines, and equipment for processing uranium to nuclear weapon grade.

Italy
Italy gave Iraq plutonium extraction facilities that advanced Iraq’s nuclear weapon program. 75,000 shells and rockets designed for chemical weapon use came from Italy. Between 1979 and 1982 Italy gave depleted, natural, and low-enriched uranium.

Brazil
Brazil secretly aided the Iraqi nuclear weapon program. Supplied natural uranium dioxide between 1981 and 1982 without notifying the IAEA. About 100 tons of Mustard gas came from Brazil.

United States
The U.S. exported $500 million of dual use exports to Iraq that were approved by the Commerce department. Among them were advanced computers, some of which were used in Iraq’s nuclear program, and strains of anthrax and botulinum which helped Iraq’s biological warfare capabilities in the late 1980s.

Despite being a minority supplier to Iraq, the U.S. often is the target for most of the blame.

United Kingdom
The U.K. sent advanced tools and computers to Iraq, some of which were used in Iraq’s nuclear program.

Austria
An Austrian company gave Iraq calutrons for enriching uranium. The nation also provided heat exchangers, tanks, condensers, and columns for the Iraqi chemical weapons infrastructure, 16% of the international sales.

Singapore
Singapore gave 4,515 tons of precursors for VX, sarin, tabun, and mustard gasses to Iraq.

Netherlands
The Dutch gave 4,261 tons of precursors for sarin, tabun, mustard, and tear gasses to Iraq.

Egypt
Egypt gave 2,400 tons of tabun and sarin precursors to Iraq and 28,500 tons of weapons designed for carrying chemical munitions.

India
India gave 2,343 tons of precursors to VX, tabun, Sarin, and mustard gasses.

Luxembourg
Luxembourg gave Iraq 650 tons of mustard gas precursors.

Spain
Spain gave Iraq 57,500 munitions designed for carrying chemical weapons. In addition, they provided reactors, condensers, columns and tanks for Iraq’s chemical warfare program, 4.4% of the international sales.

China
China provided 45,000 munitions designed for chemical warfare.

Portugal
Portugal provided yellowcake between 1980 and 1982.

Niger
Niger also provided yellowcake in 1981.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#United_States
-------------------------------------------------------

But you would rather pick on "dual use" materials. Try and put a damper on the demagoguery, it get's boring after a while.

 

[Jersay]

So enjoying throwing B.S at each other. Bunch of baseless B.S from zoofer's article.

 

[darkbeaver]

RE: Should the unwilling

The list of suppliers all have one thing in common, capitalist pigs who will do anything and anybody for a buck.

 

[Kreskin]

"You're either with us or you belong in a war crimes tribunal".

Whatever happened to the democracy crusade?

 

[Machjo]

If I witness someone steal a chocolate bar or even kill someone (Saddam Hussain's development of WMD's), it does not give me the right to capture him and then kick him in the gut while he's squirming on the ground and posing no threat to me whatsoever (US in Iraq) without proper authorisation (UN, international law).

If that person should pose an immediate threat to me (whole fleets Iraqi nuclear-armed aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines within a hundred KM from US soil, along with Iraqi fighter aircraft from those ships heading at mach speeds towards Washington DC), then certainly, the law already allows me to defend myself. Otherwise, all I have the right to do if he poses no threat to me is, at most, to apprehend him and make a citizen'sarrest (not necessary for a nation sinse obviously a nation cannot run and hide), and then turn him over to the appropriate authorities ASAP (making a formal plea to the UN). After that, it is up to them to decide what to do in the matter (attack or not), and whether they want your help (requesting member states to participate).

Should I just start sh!t-kicking the person while he's squirming on the ground (US overwhealming attack on Iraq and continued destruction of Iraqi property, infrastructure and lives), at that stage I am criminally liable and he likewise legally has the right to fight back. And if I should have already called the police (present the case to the UN), and the police already said that I can't sh!t-kick him, and yet I do anyway, especially when I have not sufficient evidence to prove that he stole the chocolate bar or committed murder (has WMD's), then I should have likewise disobeyed a direct order from the appropriate authorities. At this stage, it would have been less criminal of me to just have sh!t-kicked him without even having contacted the authorities in the first place than to hipocritically try to get their authority to do so knowing that even if I don't get it, I intend to sh!t-kisck him anyway.

At that stage, not only have I committed assault on a person on the false pretense that he committed I crime of which I cannot even prove, but likewise failed to follow direct legal orders from a police officer.

That's the US stance.

Now let's look at the Canadian stance:

Some Canadians, including myself, were willing to go to Iraq on condition that it should be legal. Once the appropriate authorites said "no", we understood that two wrongs don't make a right, and so decided to set an example by abiding by international law. According to the example above. We spot this crude bully and suspect he just committed a crime. But we have no proof. Anotehr man wants to sh!t-kick him and so calls the police to ask permission to sh!t kick him while presenting shabby evidence. The police looks at it and thinks that's not enough evidence to make an arrest. So this man asks us (Canada) if the police won't do anything about it, will we help him to sh!t-kick the man. Canada says well, if the cop thinks the evidence is sufficient, and believes this man is partitularly dangerous and we need to knock him down before he hurts someone, then sure we'll fight him. otherwise, we'll follow the cop's orders. If you want to fight him, that's your choice, but then you'll have to deal with the law yourself later. And of course the US chooses to sh!t-kick. Now it's stuck with its own mess.

So who committed the war crime?

 

[Machjo]

So when all these nations were selling al these materials, while I don't agree with their actions, were they at least legal? I don't know, just asking. If so, then it's a moot point as far as legal matters are concerned. If not, only then does it become relevent. Again, I don't know the answer, just asking.

As for the UN, I agree that it is often incompetent and needs an overhaul. Incompetence does not necessarily equal criminal negligence if it has to do primarily with the administrative structure of the organization itself. I don't believe any individual at the UN is neessarily criminally negligent, but rather that since the structure of the organisation itself needs a major overhaul, even those who'd like to do something often get stuck in burocracy. Don't forget likewise that the UN being aninternational organisation is very expensive (well over 15% of their budget just goes to translation and interpretation, and even then they are short of sufficient translators and interpretors.

Add to that the misunderstandings at the UN likewise. when I'd met with a UN interpreter in Beijing in 2004, he'd told me the way to distinguish between an experienced interpreter at the UN and a newbie was that the experienced one, if he didn't know how to interpret something, just dropped it and moved on, whereas the inexperienced one would ponder the word and thus lose the whole sentence. Scary innit! As a concrete example, the interpreters for Bush and Hu recently were likewise criticised for shabby interpretation.

So definitely, while it would be better to have world governance as opposed to anarchy, the UN does need an overhaul. And any international world cop so to speak must be viewed as culturally sensitive. Obviously US tropps in Iraq who only know how to say "shut up" in Arabic don't help much. With UN approval, perhaps some neighbouring nations could have sent in troops who could actually communicate... and pray... with the locals.

If the UN disapproved the war in Iraq, I'm sure there were reasons.