Iraq: Fears of serious war crimes in Falluja

Monday, 15 November 2004, 12:40 pm
Press Release: Amnesty International

Amnesty International is deeply concerned that the rules of war protecting civilians and combatants have been violated in the current fighting in Falluja. Dozens of civilians have reportedly been killed during the fighting between US and Iraqi forces and insurgents. Amnesty International fears that civilians have been killed, in contravention of international humanitarian law, as a result of failure by parties to the fighting to take necessary precautions to protect non-combatants. The humanitarian situation in the city is said to be precarious.

In a statement published on 4 November
http://amnesty-news.c.topica.com/maacRmrabbG0Qbb0hPub/

Amnesty International reminded the United States of America and the interim Government of Iraq that they are legally bound to observe at all times the rules of all applicable human rights and humanitarian law treaties to which they are states parties, as well as rules of customary international law binding on all states. The organization also urged armed groups in Falluja to respect the legally binding rules of international law.

For more information please see: http://amnesty-news.c.topica.com/maacRmrabbG0Rbb0hPub/

how long until the ICRC turns its file over to the International Court?

If the ICRC goes public once again, it will be even more trouble for the bush boys...

Not that gonzales cares, our future AG really thinks it is a good idea to ignore the quaint conventions of war.

HOW QUAINT!

We don't need no stinkin' laws!

Insurgents are also reported to have violated rules of internaitonal humanitarian law. In one incident, some Iraqis are reported to have come out of a building waving a white flag. When a Marine approached this group, insurgents opened fire on the Marines from different directions. A US military official in Iraq also accused insurgents of storing weapons in mosques and schools. Insurgents were reported as firing from a mosque on 10 November.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engmde140562004

or crush them with tanks, oops...

MLRS rocket barrages that spread 30,000 grenades indiscriminately over a huge area. Grenades aren't smart enough to tell civilians from combatants. Heck 10% of them aren't even smart enough to blow up during the attack. They sit around like land mines until someone disturbs them while searching the rubble, or til a kid finds it, or until a friendly soldier walks too close to it.

It's their country, and it's America's crime. You took war to them.

Your military is slaughtering entire familes right now!

Did you read the account of the AP photographer's escape from Fallujah?

"I decided to swim ... but I changed my mind after seeing U.S. helicopters firing on and killing people who tried to cross the river."

He watched horrified as a family of five was shot dead as they tried to cross. Then, he "helped bury a man by the river bank, with my own hands."

"I kept walking along the river for two hours and I could still see some U.S. snipers ready to shoot anyone who might swim. I quit the idea of crossing the river and walked for about five hours through orchards."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4614717,00.html

I say kill 'em all and let Allah sort 'em out, right? (sarcasm off)

hell for this shit. those are american flags on our soldiers uniforms. man the dumb asses in this country don't have a clue what this shit is going to cost us.

I only hope that when the bill comes due the armchair generals around here who are screaming kill, kill, kill, get to pay the first installment.

Don

At least the resistance fighters aren't yelling 'freedom is on the march' as they are bombed.

We might go to the same lengths.

You better believe we would. And any American who joined those invaders would be called by their true name, traitor.

We are the invaders.
They are protecting their country.

next, you'll be pointing to the number of people Saddam murdered, and say as long as we're not as bad as him we're ok.

the car bombs - ah, could it be the 350 tons left in bunkers by our military on their way to topple Saddam's statute in Bagdad?

Those of course are the missing explosives that our government has admitted to losing.

No one is blaming the troops, its the leaders, starting with the weed that would be king to his generals on the field.

We didn't respect, honor or even acknowledge the Geneva Convention or any other rules of war relative to civilians and non combatives. We tortured innocent citizens and god knows how many rapes and other abusives we are responsible for.

:cry: :mad: :nuke:

Shock and awe - we are the invading nation, we are the occupying nation.

Please stop playing an apologist for Satan.

Clarkie, do a quick google on White Phosphorus, called WP, or willie pete. We are using it in Iraq, in civilian populated areas. It's kind of like napalm and burns the flesh right off of you. It does not discriminate "insurgents" from children it burns anyone it contacts. If you don't die right away, you die a slow agonizing death over days. Remember, no painkillers or antibiotics in the "liberated" Iraq and it's shelled hospitals. Read and read, and then read some more. Then, and only then, state your claim that "we are better". Ok?

It's nasty stuff and burns everything on contact like Napalm ... probably why that poor little 6 y.o. girl is running naked down a road in the infamous picture from the Vietnam War. Again, that's why war should always be the *last* choice. All aspects of war is horrible and only abate when PEACE, above all else, is chosen by both parties.

the brittish considered us barbaric and accused us of fighting dirty.
One man's insurgent is another's freedom fighter. Remember we are there for no other reason than to liberate their oil.

From a president who blew up frogs as a kid and a new attorney general who wrote the Geneva Convention was quaint? War crimes...us??? If karma exists some people are in a whole lot of trouble.

Insurgents are also reported to have violated rules of internaitonal humanitarian law. In one incident, some Iraqis are reported to have come out of a building waving a white flag. When a Marine approached this group, insurgents opened fire on the Marines from different directions. A US military official in Iraq also accused insurgents of storing weapons in mosques and schools. Insurgents were reported as firing from a mosque on 10 November.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engmde140562004

the imperial japanese used the term ILLEGAL COMBATANTS to try an execute the insurgents they faced while in Nanking.

Who's the aggressor here?

We invaded THEIR country under FALSE pretenses. It was wrong and still is. It's one thing for them to have a dispot in power who kills them. But last time I checked, this is the U S of A, and we're not supposed to be doing this sorta stuff. What an effin joke...bring democracy, while we kill 'em.

of the mother who's fetus was blown out of her body. I'm sure they will understand.

oh, like "fair and balanced". gotcha.

As irregulars, I don't know if the Geneva Convention would apply. Bush and Allawi claim the resistance is not legitimate, so by that reasoning their actions don't constitute war crimes, just regular crimes.

However, occupation forces are held to certain international legal standards, so they can be charged with war crimes, at least in principle. Of course, no U.S. soldier is likely to ever be charged with a war crime, at least by any international body, given the current political situation. They may occasionally be charged by the U.S. military itself, as a few of the Abu Ghraib guards have been.

soldier Courts Martial ed was an E-6 (Staff Sergeant). If memory serves me, up to a O5 (Lt COL) was personally involved. How's that for justice?

,...that word has kinda' lost substance for me. Maybe, someday, the slow wheels of "justice" will finally turn,...or, maybe, I'll sense "justice" in the next or after-life.

:-(

downhill.

As long as US military personnel who have violated Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions are also tried for war crimes.

Article 3
(1)Persons taking NO ACTIVE PART in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed out of combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated HUMANELY, without any adverse distinction founded on race, color, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or 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.

The US military has already violated this article on the subject of torture, the taking of hostages, and humiliating and degrading treatment.

So the Abu Ghraib gang should be tried as war criminals, the commander of the 4th ID 2nd Brigade, who took as hostages the wife and daughter of an Iraqi general, should be tried as a war criminal,
and the soldiers who earlier in this war stripped naked several Iraqi
men and made them walk in public, with signs around their necks saying they were thieves, should also be tried for war crimes.
And let's not forget the Marine major who was just court martialed, and all he got was kicked out of the service. He committed a war crime by denying medical treatment to a prisoner.

So when every single one of these troops are charged with war crimes,
then it will be fair. As long as the US doesn't want to play by the rules, then as a former soldier, and an American, I don't really have that big of a problem with the insurgents not playing by the rules either.

I am truly sorry for the innocent people who have been killed by both sides, but if the shoe was on the other foot, Americans would be using the same tactics as the insurgents. Would you be as quick to call your fellow Americans murderers, and call for them to be tried as war criminals?

If you can answer that question, yes, without any hesitation, then you are better then most. But I don't think you can.

then imagine what you would do if some country invaded the beloved USofA and invaded your home town just as we are invading the Iraqi cities.

You would be an insurgent, you would be a freedom fighter. You would do what it took to defeat the invading army.

Grow up and face the reality, we are the war criminals, we are the murderers. The Iraqis are defending their homes.

I don't understand that attitude. First take the plank out of your own eye.

paragraphs in your original missive. Is it because you believe that if you keep repeating the same thing that people will start to believe it? Oh, that's because......how silly of me!

:nuke:

And if you don't like it, "Just go fuck yourself."

On 11 November a British television programme, Channel Four News, broadcast footage in which a US soldier appeared to have fired one shot in the direction of a wounded insurgent who was off screen. The soldier then walked away and said "he's gone". Under International humanitarian law the US forces have an obligation to protect fighters hors de combat. Amnesty International calls on the US authorities to investigate this incident immediately.

I saw that video when it was posted on this site a couple days ago.

When you are being shot at, you don't have time to take prisoners. That's the ugly nature of war. That marine did the right thing. To have not shot the insurgent and finished him off would have put himself and his unit in danger.

it merely called for an investigation - which is warranted.

Secondly, it isn't clear at all that the wounded person was a threat.

The wounded person was a threat or not. That's also the nature of war.

or nuremberg?

why are some so eager to cover this crimminal act up?

:shrug:

Not wider violations of international law.

got plenty of witnesses, video and besides this concern isn't just based on this one incident.

AID :shrug:

have you?

Just read his/her posting history.

if the Marine shot an unarmed or no longer a threat enemy combatant he violated the standards of the Geneva Convention which do state that a combatant who is no longer a threat is now a NON COMBATANT

Now I know what you are saying... decisions happen in seconds, best case... but if that marine did something he should not have done... sorry he has to face the music.

Now this happened OFF camera so I don't know the details and NEITHER DO YOU. You are assuming the enemy fighter was still a combatant, hence the Marine was justified. I am not making any assumption on either side. You are also making the other assumption that even if he was no longer a threat, removing him from the field and danger would have placed that unit in greater danger... as you said WAR IS HELL, and that is part for the course.

This is why we have to investigate this... for the sake of OUR honor... or did that die somewhere too?

Don't answer I know the old saying honor and glory are fine for marches and forts, but not for comba.

I'm assuming they were in a hostile situation and the marine did what he had to do, yes.

That will remain my assumption unless proven otherwise, beyond a reasonable doubt.

I choose not to make an assumption... but to wait for the ever so lovely legal decision, which may or may not come

As is what I see right now with US forces is a breakdown of discipline which is also a consequence of being over extended and not well suplied... in other words a morale problem

And yes I chose to answer for one simple reason, many of us DU'ers have been in combat, you may have done it with the armed forces, well I did it as a Red Cross Medic... so my view of these things tends to be far more legalistic than yours... since I took notes and saw violations on both sides of the conflict I happeened to be involved in.

So my view is far less kind to any combatant... and directed at how to REDUCE suffereing for everybody concerned.

That's all I'm saying. I don't think we really disagree that much, if at all.

I do know that everybody is commiting war crimes as we speak

We by actions, omision or comision... and those who commit them, well in the miliatry you are not innocent until proven guilty, but it is far more napoleonic... and IT HAS TO BE... due to the nature of the beast.

They... every time they blow a car and killed civilians, those are crimes, or when they fire from mosques, or hospitals

I do not hold eitehr side above intenrational law... as I said my aproach is far more ahem legalistic.

Now somebody asked on this thread, can they be prosecuted for War Crimes? Absolutely, even if not a signatory... there are ways, though it is harder. There are some standards of war fighting that you do not have to be a signatory, such as attacking civilians or firign from minarets (which incidentally is also against Muslim law)

But in order to find out whether we were in the clear to fire on a minaret (I suspect they were used by snipers) we need to find out.

On the other hand, I want that incident when our troops went into a hosptial armed and forced all personnel to the floor investigated. If there were fighters firing from the hosptial, then the troops were correct, if not, somebody gave a very ilegal order.

And they should be investigated whenever possible. So I think on the most essential points we do agree.

It was an illegal war of aggression and against international law. You concede this fact, right?

I forgot: its like this: send in cluster bombs and daisy cutters. anyone who dies is an insurgent.....

trial by weapon.

I guess they're Innocent until proven dead, eh?

Like the family of five machine-gunned in the river trying to get to safety.
You have some serious moral shortcomings my friend, open your eyes!

In your hatred of this war, you convict our soldiers without proof. That "family" may have been killers.

Have the moral fortitude and decency to give our soldiers putting thier lives on the line the benefit of the doubt. They deserve nothing less from us.

law, not allowing the Red Crescent in to give aid is against international law, there have been so many breaches of international law one doesn't know where to begin. The US cannot afford the Allawi interim govt to fall because the Iraqi government that will take his place CAN charge the US with war crimes!

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

murdering an injured solider are ALL war crimes, hello...



fyi: the imperial japanese army used the term ILLEGAL COMBATANTS to deal with their 'insurgency' problem in nanking as well

when these stories come out.
On the one hand it is an unjust war and they shouldn't even be there IMO.
On the other hand they have no choice but to fight this war and war is hell and shit happens.

both sides are violatingin them

Now here is the trrick from an international law standard


The US is a known combatant and a SIGNATORY of the Conventions (for the moment), The rebels are NOT

I know it may seem trite but this is an important distinction and legally it places us in a bind. If they are recognized as a legal combatant then WE HAVE to treat them as POWs under the Conventions, wonder why this is not being encouraged by either Allawi or US.

And yes war is hell and shit happens, but them rules are there to ease the suffering of NON COMBATANTS... and flattening hosptials, (we did) is a violation, so is coming into a hosptital with armed personnel and throwing the personnel to the ground

UNLESS, and this is a big iff, THERE WERE ANY FIGHERS in that facility ACTIVELY ENGATING our troops.

I know the distinctions, and why it has to be investigated.

Oh and we have commited war crimes already in this war, does the term abu ghraib come to mind? We have in the past as well, Mai Lai may refresh your memory

Crimes have to be investigated and punished to keep war from becoming even worst than it is

How profound.

The whole war is a war crime. The big guns tried at Nuremberg were principally charged with starting an aggressive war. All the "war crime" details were lesser charges.

reminds me when i was first trying to understand how so many japanese and germans could accept what their military was doing abroad.

if we have sunk this low we may be beyond hope and only a catastrophic event will shake us from our psychosis :cry:

But to compare our soldiers Nazis is revolting.

It's the insurgents who are AS A MATTER OF POLICY killing civilians in order to terrorize the country.

I'm not saying crimes have not been comitted on our side...they have.

But let's just keep some perspective, that's all I'm saying. This is Bush's war. He's the one who put our kids in this horrible situation.

and yes bush is responsible in the same way that Hitler was.

Is it revolting? YES, you are damn straight, now after the horror wears down, think ABU GHRAIB and OUR reaction to that hell, not US, the administration and its enablers

the "insurgent" groups vary - some, as a matter of policy, kill innocent civilians in order to terrorize the country. Some don't.

The US military is one entity, and it has and does kill innocent civilians in order to terrorize the country.

Read www.juancole.com or www.empirenotes.org for breakdowns on the makeup of the Iraqi resistance forces.

The only ones documented to be killing civilians as a matter of policy are Tahid wal Jihad, headed by the mysterious possibly-already-dead Abu Musab al-Goldstein. They mainly kill Shi'a civilians because TwJ sees them as false Muslims.

The majority of the Iraqi resistance forces are made up of elements from all areas of Iraqi society, and they are fighting for their homeland, which we illegally invaded and are now illegally occupying while systematically committing our own war crimes by bombing civilian areas with 2000-pound bombs. You bomb a city with ordnance that heavy, the blast radius is going to kill innocent civilians.

Cutting off water to Fallujah to "smoke out the insurgents" is collective punishment - a war crime.

Not allowing the injured to hospitals, and targeting and capturing hospitals is a war crime.

WE are in the wrong here, and most of the Iraqis fighting us are NOT targeting Iraqi civilians, no matter how many Centcom press releases laughingly claim otherwise.

But according to top U.S. military officers in Iraq, the threat posed by foreign fighters is far less significant than American and Iraqi politicians portray. Instead, commanders said, loyalists of Saddam Hussein's regime — who have swelled their ranks in recent months as ordinary Iraqis bristle at the U.S. military presence in Iraq — represent the far greater threat to the country's fragile 3-month-old government.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0928-21.htm

Those who have taken up arms because we killed or maimed a family member.

The majority of Fallujans, for example, are NOT "Saddam loyalists". Sunni does not equate to Saddam-lover.

For example, Sunni clerics in Fallujah refused to add Saddam's name in the call to prayer, and were punished heavily for their insolence.

No hotbed of "Yippee! Saddam!", that Fallujah.

that.

Fallujah had to be taken out. It was a supply center for killers.

being used as a safehouse for the enemy.

...you don't see that as a war crime either, right?

At any rate, you are simply incorrect in assuming the hospitals were safehouses for "the enemy". They were, in fact, hospitals for Fallujans, and unless you can provide credible evidence to the contrary, your comment is summarily dismissed as the uninformed rhetoric that it is.

Purely hypothetical.

I am at a loss to remember where I read it, however, and so must admit to not being able to source that information. Perhaps another DUer will remember.

At any rate, I do appreciate the consistency of your stance, as much as I disagree with it and believe you to be in error with regards to war crimes.

"killing civilians in order to terrorize the country"?

If we left tomorrow, I don't think there would be the "terrorizing of the country" on this scale.

We started it. They weren't killing one another before we got there. Now that we're there, the "insurgents" are trying to get us OUT!!

The WAR CRIMES being committed by the US military have now become "normalized" to Americans. As it was to the Germans during the Nazi reign.

The lesson of history is that no one learns the lessons of history!

The very first day our troops entered Baghdad they looted stores for Cokes and Smokes, it's gone downhill since then.

How complicit are we, as a nation, in the war crimes being committed? I know this becomes a torturous philosophical debate, but so many of us have wondered how the Japanese and German peoples could have accepted the atrocities which were committed in their name. Even the "good Germans", those who saw what was coming and thought it would never get quite as hellishly horrid as it eventually did, stayed silent for far too long.

Look at those of us right here in the U.S. Bush may claim that he got 51% of the vote but there are 49% of us who rejected him in the legal manner allowed us in this democracy. So the slaughter continues, and as much as we hue and cry about what's going on I have a hard time believing that we have done all we can to stop this madness. Have we called for a general strike? Have we taken to the streets as many did, tirelessly, during Vietnam? Have we shut down the munitions factories, kept vigil at the Capitol, demanded the resignations and or impeachments of those lawmakers and their enablers who crafted this exercise in inhumanity? Which of them stood with Byrd and Kennedy when it came time to call the roll?

Let's face it -- when push comes to shove most of us are cowards, myself included. As much as we may abhor what is going on we're not willing to do what it would take to stop it, even if that means everyone just walking off the job in a strike. We've become comfortable with our lives and we're AFRAID of losing what we've got. So when that kid Marine in Iraq aimed his rifle at a wounded man lying in an alleyway in Fallujah, whose fingers were on the trigger? You could say it might as well have been mine, too, or ours, because we know exactly what is going on and we have not moved to stop it. Our cries of outrage and protest are made here among the safe surroundings of DU, but our detached commiseration also keeps us occupied in the illusion that we are not part of the problem.

Enough for now. I'm just sick over the whole mess and vastly disappointed in my country and also in myself. There's enough blame to go around for us all.

have little choice either... after all, their homes were invaded by the world's most powerful military, there isn't much they can do in the way of traditional warfare

They, the troops, have as much choice as you or I to refuse to kill another human being.

The question is, would I raither kill a person who has done me and my country no wrong or face going to prison.

There is a choice.

Would you give up your free will and murder children in the name of this administration for a paycheck?

If you would, enlistment is the best option, if the propsect sickens you, don't enlist, or get out.

As long as you are human, you will have a choice. No choice means you are no better than an automation, and have given up your humanity.

just like the germans did.

including babies and children. We bomb babies and children, and people have a "Shit Happens" attitude? Wtf happened to morals and compassion?

with someone who gives a shit. silly of them.

I'm not sure exactly where to post this...

But heres some thoughts I've had lately. There are two things to consider when talking about war crimes: Jus ad bellum and Jus en bello. Jus ad bellum, justice in going to war, is the realm of the polititians, decided when and where to fight based on politics, not military considerations. Jus en bello, justice in the conduct of war, is how a military decides to fight a war once the decision has been made. Dont get them confused.

If you dont like the fact that the war is being fought, protest, vote, organize, work to get it stopped and get the perpitrators out of office! (I know, im preaching to the choir right now but im about to get controversial...) But if you really believe that there are war crimes being committed on the company, platoon, squad, fire team, or individual level, and you want to do something about it, theres really only one thing to do about it. Join up. If you don't, you are allowinig people with possibly lower standards to fill the ranks. Had the Army been recieving plenty of Havard and Yale-educated men to serve in Vietnam, do you think they would have had to let a man like Lt. William Calley lead a platoon of men? If you dont like guns, thats fine. Pick up a video camera and get some real footage of these crimes, as they happen. You can complain about them all you want, you can imprison the perpitrators, but what good is that if you dont prevent them in the first place?

to the wounded, hello...

and yes, they should be held accountable down to the man who executes them.

would you feel the same way if foreign troops were doing that to NYC?

it would still be a WAR CRIME and it goes straight to the top.

By that reasoning, the only solution to police brutality is to join the police. The only solution to corporate crime is to become an
Enron accountant. The only solution to electoral fraud is to get a job with Diebold.

Just War theorists have advocated this course of action over the centuries

It is not new


Oh and he does have a point, assuming you could resist, and if you decided to do this, Medic is the way to go, or lawyer

That's one argument for a draft. As you say, though, it assumes that the individual could withstand the social forces to conform to the organization once he was on the inside.

But my main problem with his advice, as he stated it, is that it is impractical. For all kinds of reasons, people can't just drop their lives and sign up with organizations (military, police, corrupt corporations, etc.) to cure problems from within. If nothing else, we only have one life to live at a time. It also assumes that the organization in question won't screen out likely sources of dissent.

Basically, I am saying that societies need mechanisms to ensure legal and proper behaviour by their organizations, especially those that are sanctioned to use violence. Just saying "join up and change things from within" is not an adequate response.

and Red Cross.

You will find how the Conventions came to be... which was the other option he gave you, which is to become an active witness

Now I am not saying go join... I just know that as a student of International Humanitarian Law this aproach has been offered many a times by theorists.

Is it practical? Not really

Now go on and read who Jean Henry Dunnant was... you are in for a surprise, and also google Battle of Solferino... one man did make a huge difference and right now we are killing his legacy

I have read a bit on this, but not very deeply.

Laws work when they are obeyed. Obedience stems from either fear of reprisals or a sense of ethics, morals, honor, etc. It's a lot harder to enfore laws over people who weild enormous amounts of physical power, so despite UCMJ, the military has to rely heavily on the moral and ethical leadership. In war people are exhausted, emotionally frazzled, often frustrated, and incredibly stressed, and it often takes a good leader with strong moral convictions to prevent the darker sides of human nature from rearing their ugly heads.

Obviously, having ethically minded people everywhere would be ideal, and prevent a number of problems in our society. But if we have a limited quantity, I'd like to see a large portion of those people in the profession that deals with the management of violence, who have to make decisions regarding who lives and who dies on a regular basis. I'd say that the profession of enforcing the laws of a society is a close second in need for ethically minded people. But as horrible as corporate crime and diebold scandels are, theft does not kill people.

some of my past, and partly what is going on

Troops are trained in the matter of what is and what is not a legal order... but these orders come from above, and way above. I know, it really is a matter of leadership

Now troops are also trained to quesion these orders but depending on how badly led the troops are (and they are right now) just how much courage it will take to raise the issue, and in a war zone it may get you killed

Then you have the problems of on the moment actions, such as kiliing an injured enemy troop

It may, from my point of view, look as a crime, but I truly do NOT kknow all the details, and the troop had seconds to think of it, Have we done this before? Hell yes all armies do... but according to internatioal law I can kill anybody who still poses a threat to me

Did that soldier pose a threat to the Marine? I don't know, and neihter do you

Now to the matter of legal orders... I once disobeyed an ilegal order, and in fact resigned my commision and kickked an Army Colonel from my hosptial, no it did not happen in the US... but boy was I glad to get backing from National HQ

Was it easy?

No, I took my life in my own hands...

Was it the moral thing to do? Absolutley, I followed the letter and spirit of the conventions. Why am I evne bothering wiht this? IF a troop questions orders, they'd better have their legal duckies lined in a row.

As to joining up, you may be right, but only if enough people were strong enough to resist the temptations that war does bring.

Im not condoning obvious war crimes.That is not at all what Im saying!

Im saying these are young boys in the midst of a terrible war that they have no choice but to fight in.
Can you honestly say that you wouldn't have your weapon drawn and ready to shoot anything that moved after seeing your fellow soldiers wounded and or killed right next to you?
Imagine what THEY must be going thru.Don't just assume the worst about the reports of our soldiers.
I have a really hard time with these stories because WE can't possibly know what it must be like in their shoes and yet here we sit ready to execute them on the spot for supposid War Crimes that we aren't even sure if they commited or not.

and bad leadership leads to bad behaviour from troops, regardless of what country

Our troops are not being led well as Abu Ghraib proved

War crimes are not always as obvious as that infernal prison either

I will tell you why my people always behaved well, I chose to lead by a very strict code when it came to the Conventions. When I DISOBEYED an ilegal order, I got backing from National HQ... and when I had to crawl to remove casualties, I knew that them bullets woudl not just turn to the side because my uniform had a Red Cross or two on it...

That is not the way it works

War is hell and if the Lts, and Captains don't keep discipline worst things will happen with those troops

if the majors and the colonels do not keep their JOs on a leash, good order and discipline will break down, and if the civilian leadership believes all these rules are trite, guess what? the troops will behave in the worst way because they can get away with it.

This is the theory of command, and it seems many are wiling to forget it

by the way, responsibilty belongs to the troop who obeyed an ilegal order, but it belongs even more to the officer who ordered it.

what war were you in?

I do understand what your saying about chain of command and the break down of honor and all but still....Im not willing to go along blindly with the idea that American soldiers are commiting war crimes without knowing what happend.

the not so covered Mexican Civil War, remember that chiapas revolt? I was a medic in Tijuana, the day it started we were ordered to moblilize as part of the reserve, and I told my colonel, head of sector to get the hell out of MY HOSPTIAL as we were neutral in a civil war. He went, but you need to understand you are reserves

IN case of an international conflict, this is a civil war, either turn your gun to my radio shack or get the Hell out of my hosptial... we are neutral... after that we got new uniforms, and boy I trained every one of my medics in the fine points of the conventions of war... as we would have to enforce them, lovely ain't it?

You may have heard of the war on drugs, what you may not have heard is how hot it has become at times... wehn you have battalion and brigade level actions to root out drug cartels it is a war... I don't care what they tell me.

Do you really think you can march yourself into a recruiting office and join up and tell the recruiter, "Oh, and by the way, I just want to be a photographer and take pictures of the war and send them back to the mainstream media for publication. I would like to pick and choose what I do when I join." Give me a break!

to embedded and autonomous journalists, who place themselves in harms way, to get out the story of what is really going on. I have the upmost respect for anyone who goes into a combat zone to get the full story, as long as it is not baised by an agenda one way or the other and does not compromise operational security

they don't agree with to stop things they don't agree with in that war. I think most people are both.

Fire Bombed the shit out of Germany-killing many innocent civilians. And then Dropped 2 atom bombs, which killed over a hundred thousand innocents. War is hell! And this war is unnecessary! Take it out on the assholes responsible for us being there, instead of the US Troops!

for Sub warfare? Nimizt told the court that we engaged in same in the pacific

You also know that the Germans wanted Bomber Harris prosecuted, and do consider him a war criminal to this day, good

Two wrongs do not make a right

even when run by civilians are aiding the military effort, and are therefore legitimate targets. Those Merchant Marine captains were profiting from the war, kinda like the civilian contrators in Iraq, did this knowingly and willingly, making them legitamite military targets. Fire bombing Dresden and Toyko directly targeted civilian populations and constituted a war crime. Im a squid though, so Im probably a little baised.

there is nothing wrong with pointing out wrong doing by any of our troops and their leaders.

now, don't we both feel better?

meanwhile, us troops are slaughtering Iraqi civilians.

who are COMMITTING WAR CRIMES.

WAR DOES NOT EXCUSE CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR.

It's just as IGNORANT, as STUPID, as WRONG, and as bush-for-or-against/black-or-white BULLSHIT to NOT hold INDIVIDUAL SOLDIERS ACCOUNTABLE for criminal actions as it is to blame ALL soldiers for the actions of INDIVIDUALS.

soldiers into the same basket of "slaughtering Iraqis"

However, I totally agree with:

It's just as IGNORANT, as STUPID, as WRONG, and as bush-for-or-against/black-or-white BULLSHIT to NOT hold INDIVIDUAL SOLDIERS ACCOUNTABLE for criminal actions as it is to blame ALL soldiers for the actions of INDIVIDUALS.

Perhaps we should all try to be more precise when we are posting messages on the internet on sensitive topics.

My apologizes for the misunderstanding.

The pawns in this war crime will be thrown away. Just so a court appointed king can remain standing. We should all be ashamed. Because this low-life motherfucker "Bu$h" is "us". America. And that just sucks bigtime.
Peace
Wildman
Al Gore is My President

Otherwise you would know that the 1929 Geneva convetions had no protections for civilian populations. The biggest change in the 1949 Geneva convetions was the addition of large protections to civilians, because of what had happened on both sides during WWII.

The first convention of 1864 protected wounded and sick soilders in the field and medical perssonel and the Red Cross.

The second Convention of 1907 extended protection to those wounded or sick, or shipwrecked memebers of the navy.

The third convetion of 1929 provided protections to prisoners of war

It was only in 1949 with the revision of the Convetion that the Fourth convetion protecting the civilian population was added.

The fire-bombing of European cities and the a-bombing of Japan (as well as earlier fire-bombing) was heinous, there's no way to whitewash it.

against Nazi aggression. The conflict was also a good deal less one sided than the current war in Iraq. Over 90,000 allied airmen died in the attacks on the Third Reich in which an estimated 600,000 Germans were killed. This gives a military to civilian death ratio from that campaign of less than 1:10. In Iraq the figure is somewhere between 1:50 and 1:100.

At the risk of being boring I am going to post once again the words of Ed Murrow on the subject of war crimes which he made after the Nuremberg trials

"It is now established that planning, preparing, and initiating aggressive war constitutes an international crime. And it is also established that atrocities -- crimes against humanity -- are not merely the responsibility of those who commit them, but also the responsibility of the highest government officials."

Whatever crimes individual soldiers may commit in Iraq it is the people who sent them to wage an illegal war who bear the ultimate responsibility.

aggressive war?
murder of over 100,000?
torture and murder?

oh the bullshit.

... like "war is hell" or "it's the nature of conflict." To hear chickenhawks quantify life and death... :grr:... it makes baby Jesus cry.

According to International law, the invasion of Iraq is illegal. Go figure.

a nation-state, and thus cannot be a signatory to international agreements.

Kind of like the Bush nonlogic about detainees/illegal combatants. People you capture in a military engagement, say in Afganistan, aren't soldiers in an army, so no POW/Geneva Convention protections, but they aren't purely civilians, so no Geneva Convention protections. Declare that they are enemy combatants, so they fall outside the protection of any law, criminal or international. The origin of the term "outlaw" was a person outside the law. Voila a black hole they can fall into, and a 1000 years of Western jurisprudence wiped away. When I think of the brilliant people of honor and integrity, who painfully slowly constructed our legal system in the West and what the weecowboy, who isn't fit to clean their shoes, is doing to what they constructed I could lay my head down and weep.

that the term "Terrorist" is just a revamped name for the way the radical right termed "Communist" during the cold war.

It's time to wake up. Just like they ranted about "Commies" as less than human and better off dead.

It's just sick the way they say that the Geneva Convention only applied to "civilized" wars. So does that mean that the Nazis of WWII are considered MORE CIVILIZED than so called Terrorists?

Anyone the right wing does not like is a, less than human Terrorist. The most inane example was Ed. Sec. Ron Page calling the Teacher's union "Terrorists."

This is sick stuff. I submit that truly civilized peoples don't judge their enemy for treatment BUT search their Humanistic and/or Christian souls to treat *every human being* with basic respect.

The term "Terrorist" is the same ole sh*t propaganda (Communist, Nazi, etc.) wrapped up in a new FEAR package to justify cruelty because they're less than human.

We are all God's creation. A true Christian does not judge one segment of humanity "more precious" than another.

Peace
Wildman
Al Gore is My President

I'm pushing 60, and I agree.
Wake up and stop swallowing all this dishonest bullshit about "terrorists".
Anybody that uses that word is trying to jerk your chain.
Anybody that tries to instill fear or anger in you is NOT your friend.

compassion in the USA.

BTW please know that "I'm FAR from royalty." <g> Sure, I'm outspoken but I try to be thoughtful of other's viewpoints. My screen name is short for my husband's favorite nickname toward me: "You're an Electronic Princess." Our home displays shelves of electronic gadgets instead of good china or figurines. I'm goofy that way. :P

Humble thanks to the kind folks who concur with so many compassionate Humanists and real Christian Philosophy, i.e., before the media allowed the far right wing fundamentalists distort our beliefs.

I've been saying that since BEFORE we invaded Iraq...that the term "terrorist" and "terrorist sympathizer" was this generations "communist" and "communist sympathizer"...vague terms to label dissenters.

same propaganda recycled decades later. What's worse is that, unlike the Vietnam Conflict Era, we the "sane" (unswayed by fear propaganda) do NOT have support of the mass media to get our message across.

That's why I stream AAR all day to make sure the powers that be know that many of us want to hear a progressive viewpoint.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe our only allies in the progressive cause is AAR and a few brave folks who call into Washington Journal on CSPAN?

Some people get cable "Sundance" or satellite "Free Speech TV." Unfortunately our local Adelphia cable company stopped broadcasting News World International on extended cable.

IMO It's going to have to hurt the big news organizations in the pocketbook before they will allow true progressive voices their fair share of time within the USA mass media.

In the rush, Hussein left behind his camera lens and a
satellite telephone for transmitting his images. His lens,
marked with the distinctive AP logo, was discovered two
days later by U.S. Marines next to a dead man's body in a
house in Jolan.

AP colleagues in the Baghdad bureau, who by then had
not heard from Hussein in 48 hours, became even
more worried.

Hussein moved from house to house - dodging gunfire -
and reached the river.

``I decided to swim ... but I changed my mind after seeing
U.S. helicopters firing on and killing people who tried to
cross the river.''

He watched horrified as a family of five was shot dead as
they tried to cross. Then, he ``helped bury a man by the
river bank, with my own
hands.''

``I kept walking along the river for two hours and I could still
see some U.S. snipers ready to shoot anyone who might
swim. I quit the idea of crossing the river and walked for
about five hours through orchards.''

(This is the 2nd report of US shooting people
in the river.)

http://uruknet.info/.?p=m7192

I didn't notice this being mentioned earlier, sorry if I'm a repeat. I heard this this morning on Democracy Now (GREAT news show on satellite tv, it's the news the fascists don't want you to know).

That is apparently where the war crimes talk came from. Those in charge are also refusing to let the Red Crescent into the town to help the citizens that remain there.

on line as well--through NPR website

not AI, not Red Crescent, Red Cross, or anyone else until the mass graves are dug and the clean-up crew is finished hiding the war crime evidence. Bush will blame the graves on Saddam someday.

Just a note to everybody:

Lets please be careful before we judge. My brother just served a term in Iraq and said things are very crazy over there. For reasons of self preservation the soldiers are taught to shoot at anything that appears hostile. I know this sounds horrible, but most of us would do the same thing if we felt attacked in our own homes.

We must remember that there are those that want our men and women dead and mistakes happen. If put into the same situation we might also over react. Just remember what the fog of war can do and do not over-judge our boys.

Do remember, however, why they are there and hope for their safe return!

www.informationclearinghouse.info

on the right side of the page, scroll down

so we can argue the case in a reasonable manner (which will sway more people and most importantly, the courts)!