> CCDarwin wrote: Fallujah, the next war crime is nearly finished: Mechanized armies attacking and destroying Iraqi cities. They call that 'liberation'.

That isn't a war crime, that's a war. We haven't committed any war crimes,
although there are plenty of conspiracy theories to believe in if you
really, really want too...

Kavik Kang wrote: CCDarwin wrote: Fallujah, the next war crime is nearly finished: Mechanized armies attacking and destroying Iraqi cities. They call that 'liberation'. That isn't a war crime, that's a war. We haven't committed any war crimes, although there are plenty of conspiracy theories to believe in if you really, really want too...

You lying piece of fascist ****, may your family burn in hell.

J'Accuse!
War Crimes and Iraq
By CONN HALLINAN

"...The Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the
civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military
objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military
objectives"

Article 48, 1977 addition to the Geneva Conventions, Part IV

The above "Basic Rule" is at the heart of the Geneva Conventions, the
international treaty that tries to be the thin line that separates civilization
from savagery. It is not something the Bush Administration has paid much
attention to as it goes about the "pacification" of Iraqi cities where local
insurgents are resisting the American occupation.

Consider the following.

On Oct. 8, U.S. fighter bombers carried out what the Pentagon called a
"precision strike" against "terrorist leaders" in Falluja, a sprawling city of
300,000 west of Baghdad. For the past two months Falluja has been the target of
a bombing campaign. According to the New York Times, the attack wounded 17
people, nine of whom were women and children. The victims were apparently from a
wedding party that had just dispersed.

The Times went on to quote a "senior Pentagon official" who said, "We know
what the strike was supposed to hit and we hit it. If a wedding party was going
on, well, it was in concert with a meeting of a top Zarqawi lieutenant." Zarqawi
is a Jordanian who has claimed credit for numerous roadside bombings and
assassinations in Iraq.

But according to Article 50 of the Conventions, "The presence within the
civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of
civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character."

In short, the attack violated the Conventions, and the "Pentagon
official"---most likely Assistant Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz--- should
be arrested and tried for violating international law. Since the attack
constituted a "grave breach" of the Conventions, the official could also be
charged under the 1996 U.S. War Crimes Act.

In the same article, the Times also quoted a "senior Bush Administration
official" as saying that the bombing was helpful for exploiting "fault lines" in
Falluja, and that it would push the "citizenry" of Falluja to deny sanctuary and
assistance to the insurgents, "adding "that's a good thing."

The "official" might, indeed, think it was "a good thing," but it also
violated Article 51, which states: "The civilian population as such, as well as
individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack."

A "Pentagon official" also told the Times: "If there are civilians dying in
connection with these attacks, and with the destruction, the locals at some
point have to make a decision. Do they want to harbor the insurgents and suffer
the consequences that come with that?"

In other words, terrify the civilian population into cooperating, a strategy
that Article 51 explicitly forbids: "Acts or threats of violence, the primary
purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population, are
prohibited."

The violations of the Convention are not limited to the bombing campaigns. The
Washington Post recently revealed that the Bush Administration allowed the CIA
to transfer Iraqi combatants out of the country (a violation of Article 49) and
to hide them from the Red Cross (a violation of Article 63).

According to an FBI report, FBI agents visiting Abu Ghraib Prison, witnessed
hooded and chained Iraqi prisoners being slapped by U.S. soldiers, who told the
agents it was a sleep depravation technique. The agents also saw prisoners held
naked in tiny isolation cells. The Defense Department readily admits it uses
loud music, painful restraints, and a semi-drowning technique called "water
boarding," to "soften up" prisoners for interrogation.

All of the above behavior breaks numerous parts of the Convention. Article 85,
for instance, says that, "Sleeping quarters shall be sufficiently spacious and
well ventilated." Article 90 instructs that, "The clothing supplied by the
Detaining Power to internees and the outward marking placed on their clothing
shall not be ignominious or expose them to ridicule." Article 117 says,
"Imprisonment in premises without daylight, and in general, all forms of cruelty
without exception are prohibited"

Besides transgressions of Geneva, the agents also witnessed violations of
several other international treaties the U.S. is a signatory to.

Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: "No one shall
be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment."

The UN Convention Against Torture prohibits, "any act by which severe pain or
suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person
for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a
confession," adding "no exceptional circumstances whatsoever may be invoked as a
justification for torture."

On Oct. 27, Theo van Boven, UN director of reports on torture, expressed
"serious concern" over "allegations of attempts to circumvent the absolute
nature of the prohibition of torture and other forms of ill treatment in the
name of countering terrorism, particularly in relationship to interrogation and
conditions of detention of prisoners." While he did not charge the U.S. by name,
there is no argument about to whom he was referring to.

The Bush Administration likes to invoke the so-called changed nature of the
post-9/11 world as the attacks created new conditions that the Conventions no
longer apply to, somehow trumping U.S. adherence to international law. White
House counsel Alberto Gonzales dismisses the Geneva Conventions as "quaint," and
the U.S. Justice Department wrote up memos giving the CIA the right to violate
both international laws and the U.S. War Crimes Act.

But systematic violations of the Geneva Conventions by the U.S. hardly started
with 9/11. Indeed, they are characteristic of virtually every conflict the U.S.
has been involved in since the end of World War II. The following are just a few
examples:

* According to a 1999 Pulitzer Prize winning series by Associated Press, it
was the official policy of the U.S. military to fire on South Korean civilians
during the Korean War. U.S. bombing also obliterated virtually every civilian
target in North Korea.

* In Vietnam, civilians living in "free fire zones"---most of the
country---were considered valid targets, and civilians were overwhelmingly the
victims of bombing during the Indochina war. Then National Security Advisor
Henry Kissinger instructed the U.S. Air Force to bomb "anything that moved" in
Cambodia. > >From 1967 to 1970, the "Phoenix Program" assassinated some 60,000
to 70,000 civilians in South Vietnam. A U.S. Congressional study found that the
Program "appears to have violated the 1948 Geneva Conventions for the protection
of civilians."

* Bombing attacks in the first Gulf War and the Kosovo War, systematically
targeted power plants and grids, railway stations, refineries, communication
networks, sewerage treatment facilities, and water purification plants, in spite
of Article 54 of the Geneva Conventions which prohibits attacking any objectives
"indispensable to the survival of the civilian population."

One could even make a case that the use of hundreds of tons of Depleted
Uranium Ammunition (DUA) in Kosovo and the two Gulf wars constitutes a war
crime. The Conventions clearly require the victorious party to assume
responsibility for the conquered civilian population and to clean up the chaos
of war. DUA has poisoned water supplies in Iraq, parts of Kuwait, and
Yugoslavia, and birth defectsand cancer incidences are far higher in areas where
DUA was used. The U.S., however, claims that DUA poses no potential health
risks,therefore it doesn't have to remove the low- level radioactive debris.

It is not only a record Americans should be ashamed of, it is one that should
make us afraid. The Geneva Conventions and other international laws were not
drawn up by bleeding heart liberals, nor were they designed to protect weaker
nations. They were a response to the enormous numbers of civilian casualties
inflicted by World War II, and as a practical way to shield everyone's armed
forces from humiliation, torture and death at the hands of an adversary.

If we are cavalier or dismissive about international law, it will encourage
others to be so as well. The most likely victims of that policy will be we
civilians, as well as our own uniformed forces. If we torture prisoners and hide
them from the eyes of organizations like the Red Cross, why shouldn't others do
the same to our soldiers and civilians?

In a recent commentary in the Financial Times, Jakob Kellenberger, president
of the International Committee of the Red Cross, wrote: "The struggle against
terrorism cannot be legitimate if it undermines basic values shared by humanity.
The right to life and protection against murder, torture and degrading treatment
must be at the heart of the actions of those engaged in this struggle. The
struggle will lose credibility if it is used to justify acts otherwise
considered unacceptable, such as the killing of people not participating in
hostilities."

Apart from the inhumanity our actions engender, as an entirely practical
matter, to do anything less than Kellenberger suggests is to place our own
people in harm's way.





BONN, April 1 (Is) - 13 days after the launch of U.S.-led invasion of Iraq,
the Swiss Foreign Ministry has decided to document U.S.-British war crimes
against Iraqi civilians on a separate section within its website.

Swiss Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy Rey Monday, March 31, was quoted by the
German paper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung as saying that the section -
operational since Monday morning - gathers information and data from credible
and documented sources, adding names of new victims would be added on an hourly
basis.

The initial data available so far reveals the dirtiness of U.S.-British
warmongers, the fakeness of their claims about a clean war, as well as their
indifference to the lives of innocent, unarmed Iraqi civilians, Rey, member of
the ruling Socialist, Democratic Party, was quoted by the paper as saying.

The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung quoted the minister as noting that incoming
data, days after the start of the invasion, revealed a significant and a
dangerous rise in the number of civilian casualties, as a result of attacks
carried out by the invading troops.

Switzerland is a founder and a sponsor of the Geneva Convention, related to
the prisoners of wars, civilians and human rights during wars, especially the
protection of civilians in war zones. In this capacity, it was imperative for us
to do our best to see the Convention is applied, especially, the protection of
civilians during wars, the paper quoted Rey as saying.

Since she held her post early this year, Rey adopted what she described as
"open diplomacy," said the German newspaper.

It added that in January, 2003, Rey called on the U.S. and Iraq to hold a
meeting in Switzerland to try to solve the standoff peacefully. The Americans
turned down her proposal.

During this week, Rey plans to hold a conference to co-ordinate humanitarian
and aid steps in Iraq, as a complementary step to a similar conference she
organized a week before the launch of the invasion.

According to the latest poll about the U.S.-led invasion, among the Swiss
citizens, majority of them opposes the invasion and denounces the U.S.-British
policies.

Almost all Swiss population have set up white flags on their roofs, as a sign
of peace and opposition to the ongoing invasion.

The Swiss government opposes using its airports or airspace by U.S.-British
military aircrafts. It also refused expelling Iraqi diplomats, a request sought
repeatedly by Washington.

According to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Rey intends to "take a walk"
through the de-militarized zone on the border between North and South Korea, in
an attempt to ease tension in the Korean Peninsula.

1..

"S. O. Damocles" <so@damocl.es> wrote in message
news:0shld.53$gB.6556@news.uswest.net... Kavik Kang wrote: CCDarwin wrote: > Fallujah, the next war crime is nearly finished: > Mechanized armies attacking and destroying Iraqi cities. > They call that 'liberation'. That isn't a war crime, that's a war. We haven't committed any war crimes, although there are plenty of conspiracy theories to believe in if you really, really want too... You lying piece of fascist ****, may your family burn in hell. J'Accuse! War Crimes and Iraq By CONN HALLINAN "...The Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between
the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and
military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against
military objectives"

Which we do better than any army in the history of armed conflict. We even
announce attacks near civilian population well in advance so that the
civilians can leave, we aren't even required to do that.

Article 48, 1977 addition to the Geneva Conventions, Part IV The above "Basic Rule" is at the heart of the Geneva Conventions, the international treaty that tries to be the thin line that separates
civilization from savagery. It is not something the Bush Administration has paid much attention to as it goes about the "pacification" of Iraqi cities where
local insurgents are resisting the American occupation.

If they stopped "resisting", there wouldn't be any more problems in Iraq.
They are the ones causing all of the problems. And we are going far beyond
that "basic rule", more than anyone has ever done before.

Consider the following. On Oct. 8, U.S. fighter bombers carried out what the Pentagon called a "precision strike" against "terrorist leaders" in Falluja, a sprawling
city of 300,000 west of Baghdad. For the past two months Falluja has been the
target of a bombing campaign. According to the New York Times, the attack wounded 17 people, nine of whom were women and children. The victims were apparently
from a wedding party that had just dispersed.

Mistakes happen in war. I'm sure by the time the war is done, there will be
stories of US soldiers accidentally killing US soldiers... if there aren't
some already. It very obviously was not an intentional attack. Who would
attack a wedding and why? Why would we attack a wedding when we want the
Iraqi people to like us?

The Times went on to quote a "senior Pentagon official" who said, "We
know what the strike was supposed to hit and we hit it. If a wedding party was
going on, well, it was in concert with a meeting of a top Zarqawi lieutenant."
Zarqawi is a Jordanian who has claimed credit for numerous roadside bombings and assassinations in Iraq.

It actually sounds like they killed a terrorist leader, and then his
surviving terrorist friends said it was a wedding so that they could get
people like you all excited. That's the only way they have of fighting this
war. But if it was a wedding, we didn't know that.

But according to Article 50 of the Conventions, "The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition
of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character." In short, the attack violated the Conventions, and the "Pentagon official"---most likely Assistant Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz---
should be arrested and tried for violating international law. Since the attack constituted a "grave breach" of the Conventions, the official could also
be charged under the 1996 U.S. War Crimes Act.

But nobody violated criminal law. It's only criminal if it's intentional.
For example, kidnapping civilians and cutting their heads off.

In the same article, the Times also quoted a "senior Bush Administration official" as saying that the bombing was helpful for exploiting "fault
lines" in Falluja, and that it would push the "citizenry" of Falluja to deny
sanctuary and assistance to the insurgents, "adding "that's a good thing."

Of course it is, we need their help so that fewer people will die.

The "official" might, indeed, think it was "a good thing," but it also violated Article 51, which states: "The civilian population as such, as
well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack."

They aren't.

A "Pentagon official" also told the Times: "If there are civilians dying
in connection with these attacks, and with the destruction, the locals at
some point have to make a decision. Do they want to harbor the insurgents and
suffer the consequences that come with that?"

That's true. The civilians are not the targets. And far fewer of them are
dying than you believe.

In other words, terrify the civilian population into cooperating, a
strategy that Article 51 explicitly forbids: "Acts or threats of violence, the
primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population, are prohibited."

No. We've kind of done this before. We know how wars go. That's all he's
talking about. We aren't targeting civilians and are, in fact, going far
beyond international law and the Geneva Conventions in our efforts to avoid
civilian casualties.

The violations of the Convention are not limited to the bombing
campaigns.

Those aren't violations. Let me tell you about an actual part of your
coveted "international law" (in qoutes because his vision of it is a little
different from the rest of the world's). Another thing it says is that men
fighting in uniform are soldiers, and men fighting in civilian clothing are
spies and may be summarily executed. Of course, in just one of hundreds of
examples of the US exceeding the requirements of "international law" we have
decided to forgoe that little provision and consider these terrorists
"soldiers" as far as that provision is concerned. An evil nation would not.
An evil nation would use that provision to execute anyone they wanted. We
really are the good guys. My opinion is biased, but that isn't it, we
really are the good guys.

The world is damn lucky we won the Cold War. I doubt you'd like Russian
policies much at all.

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 05:43:16 +0000, Kavik Kang wrote:
CCDarwin wrote: Fallujah, the next war crime is nearly finished: Mechanized armies attacking and destroying Iraqi cities. They call that 'liberation'. That isn't a war crime, that's a war. We haven't committed any war crimes, although there are plenty of conspiracy theories to believe in if you really, really want too...

Invading a country is a crime of war. G. W. is a war criminal, all who go
along with him are war criminals. Just following orders is not an excuse.
Nuremberg trails, which the US of Aggression are so proud, of settled that
excuse. Just following orders, I was ordered to Rape and killed all those
people, just doesn't cut it .

Then what can you expect the American way of doing things is based on
hypocrisy. The US will bring peace to even if they have to kill every last
person there. The US will bring democracy to the planet, even if the have
to over throw every government. etc, etc

As I write this I can hear guns being discharged.

--
Really, I'm not out to destroy USA. That will just be a completely
unintentional side effect.

--- G. W. Bush

"Kavik Kang" <Kavik_Kang@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:U9hld.2404$G36.1200@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net... CCDarwin wrote: Fallujah, the next war crime is nearly finished: Mechanized armies attacking and destroying Iraqi cities. They call that 'liberation'. That isn't a war crime, that's a war. We haven't committed any war
crimes, although there are plenty of conspiracy theories to believe in if you really, really want too...


Killing defenceless women and children!!!!

Of course the dead ones were obviously INSURGENTS
[terrorists]!!!

"Kavik Kang" <Kavik_Kang@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:phjld.2474$G36.1204@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net... "Tim May" <timcmay@removethis.got.net> wrote in message news:121120042331404833%timcmay@removethis.got.net ... In article <2oild.2440$G36.1975@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.n et>, Kavik Kang <Kavik_Kang@hotmail.com> wrote: If they stopped "resisting", there wouldn't be any more problems in Iraq. They are the ones causing all of the problems. And we are going far beyond that "basic rule", more than anyone has ever done before. They are resisting American occupation of their country. Period. Some of them are, but most of them are terrorists.


ameriKKKan definition of terrorist:
anyone killed by the fearless USSA military!!!

Kavik Kang wrote:CCDarwin wrote:Fallujah, the next war crime is nearly finished:Mechanized armies attacking and destroying Iraqi cities.They call that 'liberation'. That isn't a war crime, that's a war.

The Iraqi Governing Council declared war on Fallujah?
But Fallujah is part of Iraq!

Of course you are right, if the Iraqi Governing Council
is nothing but a puppet regime, then it isn't declaring
war on Iraq, the USSA is, again.

What pretext for the Third War In Iraq, this time? WMD's?

Threat to the USSA? (only because it's invading troops
are killed daily by resistance fighters, insurgents,
bandits, foreign Islamists, terrorists and anyone else
who doesn't like them.

Need to supress resistance to the invasion if
they hope to install their puppets and control
the oil?
We haven't committed any war crimes,

Attacks upon civilians, hospitals and clinics are all war crimes.
although there are plenty of conspiracy theories to believe in if you really, really want too...

How many of the 300,000 men, women and children in fallujah
are still alive?

Some conspiracy, huh?

In article <4196B64F.1000705@yahoo.com.au>, fasgnadh
<fasgnadh@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Kavik Kang wrote:CCDarwin wrote:>Fallujah, the next war crime is nearly finished:>Mechanized armies attacking and destroying Iraqi cities.>They call that 'liberation'. That isn't a war crime, that's a war. The Iraqi Governing Council declared war on Fallujah? But Fallujah is part of Iraq!

Indeed. And if you asked Abraham Lincoln, between 1861 and 1865, he
would also tell you that Richmond, VA or Atlanta, GA were parts of the
United States -- they were merely in rebellion. In 1967, US Army troops
operated in Detroit, MI, when state forces were using excessive force
but not getting any real control over a city beset by race riots.
Of course you are right, if the Iraqi Governing Council is nothing but a puppet regime, then it isn't declaring war on Iraq, the USSA is, again.

Nice rhetoric. Are you trying to convince anyone that isn't already
convinced? You've missed a classic "enemy", which I have seen with my
own eyes. I was giving a seminar in the New York financial district on a
very nice day. Walking onto Wall Street before having lunch, I watched a
"professional" dog walker clutching leashes as he tried to control the
slavering pack of toy poodles almost out of his grasp.

Yes. I have seen, with my own eyes, the Running Dogs of Wall Street.'

Do you seriously think that absurd phrasing like USSA
really makes you any more credible to anyone who doesn't think exactly
as you do? I haven't been a total supporter of these operations, but
your language is such that I'm not really going to pay attention until
you reduce the florid language and focus on specifics.
What pretext for the Third War In Iraq, this time? WMD's? Threat to the USSA? (only because it's invading troops are killed daily by resistance fighters, insurgents, bandits, foreign Islamists, terrorists and anyone else who doesn't like them. Need to supress resistance to the invasion if they hope to install their puppets and control the oil? We haven't committed any war crimes, Attacks upon civilians, hospitals and clinics are all war crimes.

Specific language from the Hague or Geneva Conventions, please. Pay
special respect to armed civilians, civilians being held hostage by
belligerents, and medical facilities used as firing locations.
although there are plenty of conspiracy theories to believe in if you really, really want too... How many of the 300,000 men, women and children in fallujah are still alive?
Most of them, by every estimate I've seen. What specific evidence to the
contrary do you have that the majority are dead, as your phrasing might
indicate.