Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (199099)	8/24/2006 3:23:51 PM
From: GST	Respond to of 281500

Memos Reveal War Crimes Warnings Could Bush administration officials be prosecuted for 'war crimes' as a result of new measures used in the war on terror? The White House's top lawyer thought so By Michael Isikoff Newsweek Updated: 9:14 a.m. ET May 19, 2004 May 17 - The White House's top lawyer warned more than two years ago that U.S. officials could be prosecuted for "war crimes" as a result of new and unorthodox measures used by the Bush administration in the war on terrorism, according to an internal White House memo and interviews with participants in the debate over the issue. The concern about possible future prosecution for war crimes—and that it might even apply to Bush adminstration officials themselves— is contained in a crucial portion of an internal January 25, 2002, memo by White House counsel Alberto Gonzales obtained by NEWSWEEK. It urges President George Bush declare the war in Afghanistan, including the detention of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters, exempt from the provisions of the Geneva Convention. In the memo, the White House lawyer focused on a little known 1996 law passed by Congress, known as the War Crimes Act, that banned any Americans from committing war crimes—defined in part as "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions. Noting that the law applies to "U.S. officials" and that punishments for violators "include the death penalty," Gonzales told Bush that "it was difficult to predict with confidence" how Justice Department prosecutors might apply the law in the future. This was especially the case given that some of the language in the Geneva Conventions—such as that outlawing "outrages upon personal dignity" and "inhuman treatment" of prisoners—was "undefined."

To: TimF who wrote (199099)	8/24/2006 3:29:12 PM
From: GST	Respond to of 281500

The concept of war crimes is a recent one. Before World War II, it was generally accepted that the horrors of war were in the nature of war. But during World War II the murder of several million people - mainly Jews - by Nazi Germany, and the mistreatment of both civilians and prisoners of war by the Japanese, prompted the Allied powers to prosecute the people they believed to be the perpetrators of these crimes. ....At the heart of the concept of war crimes is the idea that an individual can be held responsible for the actions of a country or that nation's soldiers. Tribunal Chief Prosecutor Carla Del Ponte visits a mass grave in Kosovo Genocide, crimes against humanity, mistreatment of civilians or combatants during war can all fall under the category of war crimes. Genocide is the most severe of these crimes. news.bbc.co.uk

To: TimF who wrote (199099)	8/24/2006 3:35:12 PM
From: GST	Respond to of 281500

Retroactive War Crime Protection Proposed By PETE YOST , 08.09.2006, 07:55 PM forbes.com

To: TimF who wrote (199099)	8/24/2006 3:39:06 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Qana bombs an Israeli 'war crime' Most of the victims in Qana were children A human rights group says the Israeli air strike on Qana that killed 54 civilians is a "war crime". ....."The Israeli military seems to consider anyone left in the area a combatant who is fair game for attack," said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. "Such consistent failure to distinguish combatants and civilians is a war crime." news.bbc.co.uk

To: TimF who wrote (199099)	8/24/2006 3:42:54 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

A war crime is still a war crime August 01, 2006 12:00am SIMPLISTIC one-liners, such as, "Israel has a right to self-defence", or "help Israel fight terrorism", do not fit the facts. Israel destroys Lebanon from the air by bombing housing estates, a convoy of ambulances, United Nations peacekeepers, bridges and roads, milk and paper factories. The best of spin doctors would be hard put to justify these as military targets. Nobody believes this is "collateral damage" or part of the "war on terror". It is a war by terror, a shocking obscenity and illegal under international law. This is state terror. Yet, Israel's war on Lebanon is legitimate self-defence according to the Australian Government, which uncritically supports Israel's actions. news.com.au

To: TimF who wrote (199099)	8/24/2006 3:55:28 PM
From: GST	Respond to of 281500

Aussie veto stopped feared war crime By Cameron Stewart July 29, 2006 01:05am AUSTRALIA intervened to stop key US military strikes against Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, fearing they might constitute a war crime. Major General Maurie McNarn, then a brigadier and commander of Australian forces in Iraq, on several occasions played a "red card" against the American plans, which included hits on individuals. His objections drew anger from some senior US military figures. In one instance, Major General McNarn vetoed a US plan to drop a range of huge non-precision bombs on Baghdad, causing one angry US Air Force general to call the Australian a "pencil dick". However, US military command accepted Major General McNarn's objection and the US plans were scrapped. The revelation of how Australia actively and successfully used its veto power in the 2003 invasion of Iraq is contained in a new book on the US-Australian alliance, The Partnership, by The Weekend Australian's foreign editor, Greg Sheridan. The book reveals that Australia, as a member of the so-called coalition of the willing in Iraq, was given a power known as a "red card" that allowed Major General McNarn to veto US military actions, including individual targets and the types of weapons used. Australia's proactive use of the veto power - on strategic, military and ethical grounds - helped the Americans produce a more effective and ethical targeting policy during the war. The book reveals that Major General McNarn - now the head of the Defence Intelligence Organisation - delivered a "great shock" to the US when he first used the red card and then put his objections to the proposed US military strike in writing. "Shit," exclaimed one American when he saw the document. "What if this leaks?" Major General McNarn replied that if the US did not take the illegal action, it would not matter. news.com.au

To: TimF who wrote (199099)	8/24/2006 3:58:38 PM
From: GST	Respond to of 281500

A war crime? This mother and son were in a convoy fleeing danger yesterday when the Israeli air force bombed the rear minibus, causing carnage. Robert Fisk: Published: 24 July 2006 They are in the schools, in empty hospitals, in halls and mosques and in the streets. The Shia Muslim refugees of southern Lebanon, driven from their homes by the Israelis, are arriving in Sidon by the thousand, cared for by Sunni Muslims and then sent north to join the 600,000 displaced Lebanese in Beirut. More than 34,000 have passed through here in the past four days alone, a tide of misery and anger. It will take years to heal their wounds, and billions of dollars to repair their damaged property. And who can blame them for their flight? For the second time in eight days, the Israelis committed a war crime yesterday. They ordered the villagers of Taire, near the border, to leave their homes and then - as their convoy of cars and minibuses obediently trailed northwards - the Israeli air force fired a missile into the rear minibus, killing three refugees and seriously wounding 13 other civilians. The rocket that killed them is believed to have been a Hellfire missile made by Lockheed Martin in Florida. news.independent.co.uk

To: TimF who wrote (199099)	8/24/2006 4:03:36 PM
From: GST	Respond to of 281500

Blair's stance toughens after 'war crime' attack politics.co.uk

To: TimF who wrote (199099)	8/24/2006 4:11:41 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Gaza: Was plant destruction a war crime? UNITED NATIONS, July 20 (UPI) -- An independent U.N. human rights expert is calling for an inquiry into the destruction of the sole Gaza Strip power station. The June 28 Israeli strike on the station, which generated 42 percent of the power used by Gaza's 1.3 million residents, may have constituted a violation of international humanitarian law, Paul Hunt, a special rapporteur for the U.N. Human Rights Council, said in a statement Wednesday. "The destruction of Gaza's electricity power station is profoundly inconsistent with the health and safety of all civilians living in Gaza, especially the young, sick, infirm and elderly, as well as their right to the highest attainable standard of health, enshrined in the International Bill of Rights and other international human rights instruments," he said. The strike resulted in "a serious water shortage," Hunt said, "affecting sewage disposal for tens of thousands of households throughout the Gaza Strip." Hunt also noted reported cases of diarrhea have increased by 163 percent compared with the same period last year, and he also warned that communicable diseases, such as cholera and poliomyelitis, could re-emerge. International humanitarian law requires parties to a conflict to distinguish between combatants and civilians. A target may be attacked if it is both aiding the enemy's military action and if its destruction gives a definite military advantage to the attacker. upi.com

To: TimF who wrote (199099)	8/24/2006 4:17:13 PM
From: GST	Respond to of 281500

Bush brings shame on U.S. By Tonya Jameson I'm embarrassed to be an American. I shouldn't feel this way because I haven't done anything wrong, but it's hard not to. It's like that collective sense of guilt that many blacks feel when they hear about a horrific crime and find out a black person committed it. That's how I feel about our country. The Bush administration wants to propose amendments to the War Crimes Act, which requires us to follow the Geneva Conventions, and a handful of soldiers have committed or are accused of committing degrading and sometimes unimaginable crimes against people we're supposedly trying to help. Their actions make all of us look bad. Worse, too many Americans are silent or clueless about the atrocities being committed in the name of national security. Some folks are so misguided that they see speaking out against the government or exposing our wartime criminal actions as unpatriotic. Joe Darby, the brave soldier who reported prison abuse at Abu Ghraib, had to move from his hometown in Maryland. He told the Associated Press, "A lot of people up there view me as a traitor. Even some of my family members think I'm a traitor." Wow. Stories of soldiers running amuck in the war against terror are so routine that many of us shake our heads in disbelief, take the shampoo and hair gel out of our carry-on bags and pretend we're safer than we were before 9-11. We'd rather obsess over solving the murder of JonBenet Ramsey, one little girl, rather than speak out against what's happening in Iraq. While the news media make Ramsey the story of the day, about a dozen Marines are still being investigated for murdering up to two dozen civilians, including children, in November in Iraq; five soldiers are being investigated in the slaughter of the Iraqi family of a 14-year-old girl who was raped and murdered in March; four soldiers are accused of murdering three detainees in May; and prisoners have been abused in U.S.-run prisons in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay. In addition to those headline-grabbing crimes and accusations, in the five years since 9-11, Congress has steadily allowed the Bush administration to quietly erode the Constitution, with such things as secret CIA prisons and domestic wiretaps, supposedly to keep us safe. The last straw for me, the point when I hung my head in disgust, was when I read about the Bush administration's attempt to rewrite the War Crimes Act of 1996. Congress made it a felony to violate the Geneva Conventions, which guarantee fair trials for detainees and prohibit cruel, inhuman and humiliating treatment, "outrages upon personal dignity of detainees" as well as murder and torture. Instead of adhering to the rules and vigorously prosecuting those who violate them, the Bush administration wants to eliminate ones it doesn't like. Last week, the administration sent a proposal to Congress limiting the act to murder and torture. This proposal would allow the interrogation techniques of humiliation and protect past violators. The administration also wants to ban using the Geneva Conventions as a basis for a legal case in U.S. courts. Talk about arrogant. Why shouldn't the Bush administration continue to make the rules as it sees fit? Congress isn't doing anything to rein in the president. When the Supreme Court rulings put Bush in check, he asks Congress to pass legislation that will allow him to do what he wants. The American people aren't doing anything to push Congress to stop the Bush dictatorship. Rewriting statutes to allow us to get away with actions that are immoral, illegal or both weakens the War Crimes Act, puts our prisoners of war in danger and further decreases our credibility in the eyes of the world. It makes us look like the hypocritical bullies that we are. If Americans were really patriotic, we would push Congress to stand up to the president and reject this proposal. When we hear about Americans committing crimes in this war on terror, we would hold demonstrations to demand a thorough investigation and prosecution of the alleged perpetrators. We would have a day when no one went to work to show our support for the victims. We would get our government's attention and stop being the international embarrassment that America's become. --- fortwayne.com