April 18, 2003
The Crime Of War
Note: This post is a response to a comment from "Frank Rizzo". (Digression: why are all y'all so afraid to use your real names and/or e-mail addresses?) Which comment was in turn a response to the post "One Of These Things (Is Not Like The Others)". Some links may be added to this post in future if this blogger feels up to the task.
You raise a valid point: random or first-time readers of this blog will not find much mention of Saddam's crimes, but will find much mention of the United States' crimes. Here are some reasons why.
• Every person over the age of five is well-aware of the brutal, tyrannical, murderous nature of the regime that was Saddam's Iraq. Asserting that Saddam was a brutal, tyrannical, murderous dictator would be about as controversial as asserting that shit flows downstream. But while the sordid history of U.S. war crimes may be well-known outside our frontiers (after all, so many of the world's people have been on the receiving end of our military bombardments), it's not very well known here.
• Presuming he'll at some point be apprehended, there will be no difficulty in forcing Saddam to stand trial for his crimes. But that George W. Bush should stand trial for his crimes is an essentially inconceivable supposition.
• The United States is the most powerful state in history. We are citizens of the United States (most of those reading this, that is). It is our responsibility to address the injustices committed by our state, and in our names. It is not our responsibility (nor that of our "leaders") to address the injustices committed by Saddam Hussein. Indeed, it is not under our legal purview. In point of fact, given that Saddam's recent crimes pale into nothingness when compared with the most vile and heinous period of his rule -- the war with Iran and the concomitant internal repression, and that Saddam was crucially aided by the United States in this period, and given the utter barbarity of the U.S.-led sanctions regime; if we have any responsibility toward Iraq (this blog would argue that we do), it is to pay reparations, not to rain down thousands of bombs and kill thousands of people.
As far as the Iraqi regime's intermingling of civilian and military "objectives" is concerned, yes, that is clearly a crime. But this does not make American targeting of said "objectives" -- in the full knowledge that civilian casualties will result -- any less criminal, no matter how loudly the Pentagon bleats that it was all Saddam's fault. (Also note that the Pentagon openly acknowledges that its bombing of populated areas will "inevitably" result in civilian casualties -- a clear violation of the Conventions.)
But here we have come full circle. For by your logic, any war-related killing of civilians (never mind "military casualties") can be justified by claiming that it was merely the "unintended" by-product of the attaining of a "necessary" military "objective" or by blaming the "enemy" for situating civilians or civilian infrastructure near a "legitimate" target. This would include September 11th. Surely, if Al Qaeda's war is itself self-defined as "legitimate" (despite world opinion or the letter of the law), an office building (let alone two massive towers in the heart of the world's most important financial centre) is as "legitimate" an objective as a city's palaces, or a city's electrical grid, or a city's water-works. Hell, one could even argue that the Bush Administration was aware that the perpetrators of September 11th considered the twin towers targets -- they'd targetted them before -- and was therefore in "violation" of the Geneva Conventions for allowing civilians to work there during a time of war (September 11th didn't exactly burst out of a vacuum). Sounds completely absurd, doesn't it? Yet, put the shoe on the other foot, and ask how absurd the Bush Administration's justifications for the war (despite world opinion and the letter of the law), as well as for the specific methods used during the war, must sound to an Iraqi -- and how hollow they must ring when set beside the reality and the enormity of what has befallen that country. Or ask a "neutral" observer (from another planet, for example) which of the two "wars" is the more, or less, barbarous.
"Frank", if you're willing to accept that 1,642 (or 642, or 1) Iraqi civilians (plus unknown thousands of Iraqi soldiers) killed without their consent is justified in attaining the noble objective of "liberating" by force then occupying until a time of our choosing any country we alone purport to perceive as "bad" or "threatening"; then consistency dictates that you must be willing to accept that the killing of three thousand New Yorkers, without their consent, in service of attaining the noble objective, determined by Al Qaeda alone, of chasing the "infidels" out of the "holy land" is similarly justified. To tread that path is (or ought to be) unthinkable.
War itself is a crime against humanity.
This war itself is a travesty -- both legally and morally. Every shot fired is a war crime. This argument was stated parenthetically in the prior post, and this blog has stated it more forcefully in the past. But it cannot be stated loudly enough or frequently enough. If those international actors with the power to disregard International Law (to mention nothing of elementary morality) can only stoop to acceding to the law when it suits their own needs or conveniences, then, "civilisation" is ultimately doomed.
Having said all that, this blog will still maintain (even though the strict adherence to legalism in some ways dehumanises both ourselves and our victims) that it is important to hold the Bush and Blair Administrations' feet to the fire as regards "war crimes" committed within an illegal and unjustifiable war -- if for no other reason that it could save lives. If we can't prevent the next war, maybe we can prevent the utilisation of some of the more horrifying concoctions of military industrialists (and radioactive munitions and cluster bombs are at the very top of this list) in the next war.
Finally, "Frank", your statement that "Saddam thought he could get away with this war in the first place" is rather beyond the pale. You appear to have purchased hook, line, and sinker the Bush Administration's plea that this war was "forced" upon it; that the Administration was dragged kicking and screaming into battle only via Iraqi intransigence and aggressiveness. Is this not truly the apogee of doublethink?
Posted by Eddie Tews at April 18, 2003 12:48 AM
Comments
My dearest Eddie, Sad, my friend. But let's get to the point: First, we don't like to use our real names because it's much more fun making one up. We are playing with you much like a cat does with a mouse, knowing you will ask why we don't use our real names. I'm surprised that you even know who Frank Rizzo is, seeing as how he basically goes around insulting people, which by nature should offend you, so you where's your anti-Jerky Boys campaign site? Hypocrite. Now let's begin the systematic destruction of your very weak points. "Every person over the age of five is well-aware of the brutal, tyrannical, murderous nature of the regime that was Saddam's Iraq." This therefore, according to you, makes it okay to do nothing about it. According to you, as long as the killings and rapings are well known, there is no value added in trying to protest about them. Instead you focus your efforts on trying to expose problems that don't exist. Do you understand why this is completely flawed thinking? Instead of trying to remove a proven person who has no hesitation to mass murder any group, you buy into these sorry conspiracy-theory websites at how the U.S. covers everything up and therefore the U.S. is a much greater threat than the proven - and therefore forgiven - slayings in Iraq. Here's a hint, moron: The U.S. military was happy to have embedded reporters with its units because the U.S. has nothing to hide and was willing to have even the Clinton News Network - CNN - verify that, in the hopes of surpressing people like you from pushing these stupid conspiracy theories. Not surprisingly, facts never influence someone who is in hard denial, as your ramblings clearly show. If you don't think any anti-Saddam-killing-Iraqis protesting would have an effect on how Saddam thinks (which they wouldn't), figure out a better way to make him stop killing his own people instead of trying to focus your efforts where you think you might feel important or be heard. Why didn't you go over to Iraq to act as a human shield for the Kurds or innocent Iraqi women about to be raped? Because you know your ass would be dead meat, that's why, so you try to be popular by deriding a country that doesn't kill you for speaking against it. How about this pathetic excuse for an argument: "Presuming he'll at some point be apprehended, there will be no difficulty in forcing Saddam to stand trial for his crimes." Do you understand that you just defeated your whole case with this statement? If you had your way, we would not have gone to war - correct me if I'm wrong here, but that seems to be the jist I'm getting from your site. No war means that Saddam would still be in power, which means that he would never BE apprehended to stand those trials, moron. And his killings would continue, as well as his secret development of WMD. Wait, but that's okay, because it's well known so we can ignore it. And you thinking, "Well, we'll get the U.N. to pass a resolution where he has to give up power and leave the country to stand war crimes" shows the sorry state of how you think totalitarian dictators operate. How about this: "It is not our responsibility (nor that of our "leaders") to address the injustices committed by Saddam Hussein." Here I agree with you. Who the hell said we have to be the global policeman. That sucks money out of our budget which would be better spent in reduced taxes (although you liberals love taxes so they can fund your socialistic programs, different subject though). The difference in this situation is that getting rid of Saddam's regime was not a favor to the Iraqi people nor global policeman. Freeing Iraq was a side benefit. The war was to protect OURSELVES from the horrors that awaited us if we did nothing. You really need to understand that once upon a time, these two oceans called the Atlantic and Pacific protected us from attack. Sept 11th proved that this safety net was no longer valid. Therefore we can do one of two things: Sit back and wait for an attack then respond while we lick our wounds - your view - or we can hunt down and irradicate those who would attack this country via unconventional means before they do so. This is what is known as PREEMPTION. Eddie, if I came up to you and put a gun to your head, by your logic you would wait for me to pull the trigger before acting. Here's the point: by then it's too late. Now another weak point of yours: We aided Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war. Yes we did. At the time it was aiding the lesser of two evils. I will agree that that doesn't make it okay. But did you bother, Eddie, to follow that guys suggestion and find out what a sunk cost was? Just because we made a mistake in the past, according to your superb logic, we should live with it instead of correct it. Supporting Saddam was a bad investment that we were willing to take the hit on and move on. So move on. How about your brilliant view on the sanctions regime. Oh, the U.S. is so bad for pushing sanctions? You moron, again you baffle me. Do you know why the sanctions exist in the first place? Hint: It's not to screw the Iraqi people or even Saddam. I know you will never bother to look it up, again never letting the facts stand in the way of your opinion, so I will tell you. The sanctions were/are imposed because of Iraq's failure to comply with the 18 UNSC resolutions imposed on the country regarding its WMD programs. If Saddam wanted the sanctions lifted, he would simply comply with the resolutions and whammo, no sanctions! If he has nothing to hide, what's preventing him from cooperating according to the 17 prior UN resolutions? But Saddam chose not to, instead hiding his WMD program while blaming the U.S. for imposing the sanctions. Saddam is not stupid. He knows people like you will make the connection: U.S. pushes santions, sanctions hurt Iraqi people, therefore U.S. wants sanctions so it can hurt Iraqi people. Idiot, I'm sorry but you are. If Saddam cared for his people, he would realize that the sanctions are affecting them and give up his WMD program. But he does not care about his people, which you seem to be okay with. Saddam no doubt shared Lenin's views of Western peace activists as "Useful idiots." How's it feel to be one of them? Here you go: "But this does not make American targeting of said "objectives" -- in the full knowledge that civilian casualties will result -- any less criminal, no matter how loudly the Pentagon bleats that it was all Saddam's fault. (Also note that the Pentagon openly acknowledges that its bombing of populated areas will "inevitably" result in civilian casualties -- a clear violation of the Conventions.)" Again, please tell me that you are joking. First, the easy one: It is likely not a revelation to anyone except you that if we drop bombs in a populated area, there will be some civilian casualties. You seem to report this as news though, but hint: It's not. The Geneva convention was designed knowing that in a war, civilian casualties result. The Convention sought to minimize them, not prevent them. Only people like you who do not understand the Convention believe that it's purpose was to prevent any civilian casualties. The Convention, if you bothered to read it, prohibits the targeting of targets where the loss to civilian life exceeds the military benefit of its destruction. The writers of the Convention, unlike you, understood that sometimes legitimate targets will be in civilian populations, but placed limits on how you could go about destroying them. You really need to re-read the earlier post about how it is unlawful to drop one huge bomb to take out a tank, because then the benefit of taking out the tank grossly exceeds the cost of life. But these are small points. Eddie, you seem to miss the biggest point of all. Yes, we were forced into this situation, moron. Saddam has weapons he would have used against us. Saddam, being supported by the likes of you, decided not to give them up. Seeing as how his possessing them was unacceptable, there was no choice except to remove him by force. Now here's where you come in. If you really wanted peace and no war, Eddie, you would have been putting pressure on Saddam to give up his weapons in the first place - preventing the need for us to go to war. But no, instead you put pressure on the U.S. because you think the U.S. is more easily influenced by protestors than Saddam. That sets a great precedent, Eddie - appease the unapproachable dictator, criticise the one who will listen. Brilliant. Your "The Twin Towers was a legitimate target" would be true if it was not for one thing. It has to do with KNOWINGLY or INTENTIONALLY placing civilians in harm's way. There was no discrete knowledge of Sept 11th, and no your "the buildings were attacked once, therefore we should abandon them" arguement is just plain stupid. According to your comedy-worthy logic, since New York City was attacked, maybe we should evacuate the whole city until there are no more terrorists in the world. Hell, since the whole U.S. is a target, maybe we should all leave and come back when it's safe, otherwise the government is endangering civilians. Moron, I can't believe I'm wasting my time on you. "Sept. 11th didn't exactly burst out of a vacuum." For evacuate-the-country conspiracy theorists like you, it certainly didn't. For most people though, including the government, it was a surprise, so get over it. If we thought it would happen, we would have today's security in place on Sept. 10th. Sept. 11th, Eddie, was what is known as a "surprise," you might want to add that word to your vocabulary too. You cannot live your life waiting every second for the "big surprise," otherwise you are not living at all, and this is what Bush wants to prevent. Let me wrap up the other points in bullet format. -"Every shot fired is a war crime." Why, because somebody dies? This is just stupid. -"War itself is a crime against humanity." No, moron, war itself is a result of humanity. Until you can somehow prevent evil people from coming to power and using it to satisfy the human drive for conquest, which is hard to remove, you will always need a force in place that is ready to prevent this from happening. Sometimes people like you encourage aggressors by apologizing for them, as in this case, thereby strengthening their position and pushing us into war. Next time focus on the real bad guy instead of the one you want to create, it might help prevent a war, idiot. -"civilisation" is spelled with a "z" not an "s." -"You appear to have purchased hook, line, and sinker the Bush Administration's plea that this war was "forced" upon it." You, Eddie, seem to have bought hook, line and sinker the great conspiracy theory ideology of whatever our president says is a lie. I don't blame you fully - Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" didn't help the president's future credibility. But in this case, Bush was right on. I didn't "buy" Bush's stance. I derived it, as did most reasonably intelligent people. Once you understand that our oceans don't protect us any more and just rolling over and appeasing those who hate us won't make them stop hating us, then you will see why this war, thanks to your unwillingness to try and make Saddam leave without bloodshed, was necessary. I realize that it is unprofessional and unhelpful to have kept referring to you as a moron and idiot, but Eddie, you are. -- Posted by: Frank Risso on April 18, 2003 10:00 AM
Frank you forgot to mention about eddie's lack of any knowledge about depleted uranium. this may serve to inform those who like to look at evidence instead of wishful thinking
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84472,00.html
therefore i do not expect eddie to read it, or to comment more intelligently about the subject in the future. frank rizzo- very funny.
Response: First, results of a field trip conducted in post-war Afghanistan suggest that the United States fired off natural (i.e., non-depleted) Uranium munitions there, while another study examines the likelihood that natural Uranium munitions were used in Afghanistan and were planned for Iraq as well.
Second, rather than accepting as gospel a solitary report from Fox, perhaps one should consider perusing evidence from the likes of Doug Rokke (the Vietnam veteran tasked with cleaning up the DU mess left behind after the first Gulf War, and who is, owing to his visibility and status, under constant and vicious harrasment from the U.S. Government) and the many others who have studied the issue. Here is a collection of such resources.
-- Posted by: saul rosenburg on April 18, 2003 07:05 PM
A citation from the Fox News site... that is hilarious. You did mean it as a joke, right? -- Posted by: Geraldo "It's all about me" Rivera on April 18, 2003 10:58 PM
I was going to say the same thing, Geraldo. You aren't going to convince anyone if you cite Fox News, dude.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/2860759.stm
http://www.rimbaud.freeserve.co.uk/dhap99f.html#FAHEY
Two reports to check out. While no one has conclusive information about the effects of DU, it would be quite a stretch to say that it's known to be harmless.
Eddie...I love this blog, but I cringe whenever I see the title. It's like a sock in the stomach. -- Posted by: drublood on April 19, 2003 05:07 PM
I think Frank Rizzo so thoroughly disected and dismembered your argument, Eddie, that I could not possibly add anything to it.
I find your point of view, just like your writing and your "points", to be very hackneyed, Eddie. Please pursue another line of work or hobby. Leave foreign affairs to those of us who know what we're talking about.
I'm sure we would all agree that we hope to see an expeditious end to the situation over there, and that our troops are safely home as soon as their duty is done. God bless our troops, their leaders, and the USA!!! -- Posted by: Tarbash the Egyptian Magician on April 19, 2003 06:57 PM
Frank, How soon do you think the US should go after Syria, Iran, and North Korea, and how would you justify your answer? :-p -- Posted by: slash on April 21, 2003 03:12 PM
Dear Slash, --So glad you brought that up. Thank you. Here's the answer to your question: We will "go after" Syria, Iran, and North Korea as soon as they have demonstrated both the willingness / desire to launch unconventional attacks against the United States and have the means to do so. This is an AND boolean function, if you know what that is, which requires two things to be true: 1) they desire to hurt us, and 2) they reasonably are suspected of having the capability to do so (most obviously, WMD, but also support of terrorism). --It is so easy to prevent future wars of this type, Slash and Eddie, and you even might be able to help. Simply divert your anti-war efforts in a truly pro-peace way to help convince these nations not to aid and abet terrorist groups that want to hurt the U.S, and there will not be a need for conflict. It's that simple. If they don't scheme to cause the U.S. damage, they have nothing to fear - does that make sense? Just leave us alone. Cameroon - just picked it at random - is not plotting to strike the U.S., and that's why you don't see us pressuring it. But the idea of a country's motives and actions having consequences is not good enough for you, Slash, so you want bad countries to be able to plan attacks on the U.S. without U.S. intervention. Great idea. ---Let me boil it down into the recipe for having the U.S. not ever drop another bomb: For those countries that target the U.S., simply do not do so, and you will not be in the United States' crosshairs. Does that make sense to you guys? It makes sense to everyone else. But since your motive isn't actually peace, it's not good enough. You have to have some kind of outcome that makes the U.S. look bad. ---We have WMD, in the form of nukes. So does France, Britian, Russia, and China, others as well. However, as much as we disagree with France, it is not about to start lobbing nukes at our cities to settle a score. Others are not so restrained. You guys and your "the U.S. has WMD too, maybe we should get inspectors over HERE" crack me up. ---Did I answer your question, Slash? If North Korea claims that they want nukes as a deterrent, as we do, then I think that is fine, I really do. However, you have to realize - and I'm sure you won't try to - that a country's intentions can change much faster than its capabilities. In a country like Syria, Iran or North Korea, leaders can change in weeks while weapons take years to develop. So it is a calculated risk to allow an anti-U.S. country to get these weapons, even if they claim they want them for self defense. By the way, nukes make a great deterrent, chem/bio weapons do not. They have only one purpose, one which I pray that you never have to find out about firsthand. Just remember, Eddie and Slash, that when the bad guys release anthrax in your airport's ventilation system, they don't care if they take out a few "peace-loving" terrorist-abetting Americans along the way.
-- Posted by: Frank Rizzo on April 21, 2003 09:42 PM