Double Standards in Assessing War Crimes

When used by Saddam, White Phosphorous Bombs are considered as Chemiical Weapons

November 22, 2005
GlobalResearch.ca

When Saddam Hussein allegedly used white phosphorous bombs against the Kurds , he was accused of using illegal chemical weapons.

When the US uses white phosphorous bombs in Fallujah, they were not identifed as an illegal weapon.

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_22431050_91r.html


"The use of White phosphorus ("WP") may also be a war crime under other international treaties and domestic U.S. laws. For example, the Battle Book, published by the U.S. Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, contains the following sentence: "It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets." Indeed, it is interesting to note that the U.S. previously called white phosphorous a chemical weapon when Saddam used it against the Kurds."

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=19691231&articleId=1314

:banghead:

Which means that we may have indeed committed a war crime. Someone in the Military will have to account for why white phosphorous was used as an anti-personnel weapon. Ultimately, as Commander-In-Chief, that "someone" is George W. Bush.

I say this in sincerity and with as little rancor for GWB as I can manage. Since punishment of a nation is so subjective and symbolic, International Law is based on accountability and resolution of complaints rather than retribution. If attacks with WP are proven, some way of "setting it right" will have to be implemented.

This issue is far from resolved. Hopefully its resolution will lead to greater awareness of WP and stronger measures being taken to ensure that it is not used in the future. And when the issue is at last closed, we should have made progress, both as a nation and a world. That's the least we owe to the victims of our folly.

--p!

... the winners get to try the losers. Such was the case in Nuremberg.

Perhaps it's worth remembering what Curtis LeMay said after WWII, in a more reflective moment about fire-bombing Japanese cities: "If we had lost the war, we would have been tried as war criminals."

The fire-bombing of Dresden was probably even more clear-cut. The British did it mostly to prove to Germany that they could be as ruthless as Germany had been with their bombing of London. London and environs did have a few military targets, while Dresden had none.

The only way to avoid war crimes is to avoid war, a lesson that seems to have been utterly lost on the Bush family. *sigh*