Hello two Bobs >Correct me if I am wrong, but history shows us that that following >any war, you only get war crime trials for the leaders of the losing >side.
There's a whole new court of opinion to be considered this time round. It's worldwide, it can't be swayed, it doesn't care what leaders think, and it's already deeply involved in this issue. "There may still be two superpowers on the planet: the United States and world public opinion," said The New York Times. Indeed, and it's the Other Superpower and the way it networks via the Internet that's proving unstoppable, across a very broad front. Chief non-allies of the Anglo/US coalition are the entire world with the exception of Israel, and not excluding most Americans: >... On the brink of the war no public but the Israeli one supported >it under the conditions in which it was being launched--that is, >without UN support. Public-opinion polls showed that in most >countries opposition to the war was closer to unanimity than to a >mere majority. A Gallup poll showed that in "neutral" (and normally >pro-American) Switzerland the figure was 90 percent, in Argentina 87 >percent, in Nigeria 86 percent, in Bosnia (recently the beneficiary >of NATO intervention on its behalf) 91 percent. In all of the >countries whose governments supported the war except Israel's, the >public opposed it. The "coalition of the willing" was a coalition of >governments alone. See: The Other Superpower March 27, 2003 by Jonathan Schell http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030414&s=schell Most of the governments that opposed public opinion to support the invasion either fell or quickly learnt their lesson and pulled out their troops and support. The Other Superpower is likely to be implacable about the Iraq war crimes issue. They're 9we're) proving implacable about quite a lot of things, and about time too. >As the Anglo/US coalition can be deemed to have effectively won the >war against Iraq, You mean like the US won the war in Vietnam? Yes they're not the same but they're comparable nonetheless, and, uh, I think we heard about the victory and the war being over some time ago already. Actually you first have to get the other side to admit they're beaten so they stop killing your guys, and there aren't a lot of signs that they're quite getting that message just yet, or ever. >there will sadly be no war crime trials of it's leaders. I'm not sure some of them would agree with you right now quite as much as they might've done a year or so ago. Best Keith >Reg'ds >Bob > >----- Original Message ----- >From: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>bmolloy >To: <mailto:Biofuel@sustainablelists.org>Biofuel >Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2005 4:19 AM >Subject: [Biofuel] Portents of the upcoming Big One > >Hi All, > This latest report from Pilger. Does this portend the Big >One - a criminal trial of Western war leaders that would outshine >Nuremberg? >Bob. > >Date: Saturday, 29 October 2005 7:20 pm > >THE EPIC CRIME THAT DARES NOT SPEAK ITS NAME: John Pilger > >A Royal Air Force officer is about to be tried before a military >court for refusing to >return to Iraq because the war is illegal. Malcolm Kendall-Smith is >the first British >officer to face criminal charges for challenging the legality of the >invasion and >occupation. He is not a conscientious objector; he has completed two >tours in Iraq. >When he came home the last time, he studied the reasons given for >attacking Iraq >and concluded he was breaking the law. His position is supported by >international >lawyers all over the world, not least by Kofi Annan, the UN >secretary general, who >said in September last year: "The US-led invasion of Iraq was an >illegal act that >contravened the UN Charter." > >The question of legality deeply concerns the British military brass, >who sought Tony >Blair's assurance on the eve of the invasion, got it and, as they >now know, were lied >to. They are right to worry; Britain is a signatory to the treaty >that set up the >International Criminal Court, which draws its codes from the Geneva >Conventions >and the 1945 Nuremberg Charter. The latter is clear: "To initiate a war of >aggression... is not only an international crime, it is the supreme >international crime, >differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within >itself the accumulated >evil of the whole." > >At the Nuremberg trial of the Nazi leadership, counts one and two, >"Conspiracy to >wage aggressive war and waging aggressive war", refer to "the common plan or >conspiracy". These are defined in the indictment as "the planning, >preparation, >initiation and waging of wars of aggression, which were also wars in >violation of >international treaties, agreements and assurances". A wealth of >evidence is now >available that George Bush, Blair and their advisers did just that. The leaked >minutes from the infamous Downing Street meeting in July 2002 alone >reveal that >Blair and his war cabinet knew that it was illegal. The attack that >followed, mounted >against a defenceless country offering no threat to the US or Britain, has a >precedent in Hitler's invasion of Sudetenland; the lies told to >justify both are eerily >similar. > >The similarity is also striking in the illegal bombing campaign that >preceded both. >Unknown to most people in Britain and America, British and US planes >conducted a >ferocious bombing campaign against Iraq in the ten months prior to >the invasion, >hoping this would provoke Saddam Hussein into supplying an excuse for an >invasion. It failed and killed an unknown number of civilians. > >At Nuremberg, counts three and four referred to "War crimes and crimes against >humanity". Here again, there is overwhelming evidence that Blair and Bush >committed "violations of the laws or customs of war" including >"murder... of civilian >populations of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of >prisoners of war". > >Two recent examples: the US onslaught near Ramadi this month in which 39 men, >women and children - all civilians - were killed, and a report by >the United Nations >special rapporteur in Iraq who described the Anglo-American practice >of denying >food and water to Iraqi civilians in order to force them to leave >their towns and >villages as a "flagrant violation" of the Geneva Conventions. > >In September, Human Rights Watch released an epic study that documents the >systematic nature of torture by the Americans, and how casual it is, >even enjoyable. >This is a sergeant from the US Army's 82nd Airborne Division: "On >their day off >people would show up all the time. Everyone in camp knew if you wanted to work >out your frustration you show up at the PUC [prisoners'] tent. In a >way it was sport... >One day a sergeant shows up and tells a PUC to grab a pole. He told >him to bend >over and broke the guy's leg with a mini Louisville Slugger that was a metal >[baseball] bat. He was the fucking cook!" > >The report describes how the people of Fallujah, the scene of >numerous American >atrocities, regard the 82nd Airborne as "the Murdering Maniacs". >Reading it, you >realise that the occupying force in Iraq is, as the head of Reuters >said recently, out >of control. It is destroying lives in industrial quantities when >compared with the >violence of the resistance. > >Who will be punished for this? According to Sir Michael Jay, the >permanent under- >secretary of state who gave evidence before the Parliamentary Foreign Affairs >Committee on 24 June 2003, "Iraq was on the agenda of each cabinet meeting in >the nine months or so until the conflict broke out in April". How is >it possible that in >20 or more cabinet meetings, ministers did not learn about Blair's >conspiracy with >Bush? Or, if they did, how is it possible they were so >comprehensively deceived? > >Charles Clarke's position is important because, as the current British Home >Secretary (interior minister), he has proposed a series of >totalitarian measures that >emasculate habeas corpus, which is the barrier between a democracy >and a police >state. Clarke's proposals pointedly ignore state terrorism and state >crime and, by >clear implication, say they require no accountability. Great crimes, >such as invasion >and its horrors, can proceed with impunity. This is lawlessness on a >vast scale. Are >the people of Britain going to allow this, and those responsible to >escape justice? >Flight Lieutenant Kendall-Smith speaks for the rule of law and humanity and >deserves our support. > >First published in the New Statesman - ><http://www.newstatesman.co.uk>www.newstatesman.co.uk _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
