I'm no expert, but it seems to me that there are agreements with
countries around the world, like the Geneva convention, and who knows
what else, that prohibit attacking citizens, public infrastructure,
utilities..
I'm sure that someone more knowledgeable will chime in.
Joe Street wrote:
I'm no expert, but it seems to me that there are agreements with
countries around the world, like the Geneva convention, and who knows
what else, that prohibit attacking citizens, public infrastructure,
utilities..
I'm sure that someone more knowledgeable will chime in.
Agreeing to be part of the UN is supposed to mean agreeing not to wage
preemptive war. The British are having arguments at high levels in
government about the illegality of the Iraq invasion. The article below by an
American law professor also talks about treaties, agreements and
international law being ignored:
Reaping the Whirlwind: Departures from International Law Helped Create
Climate for Iraq Prison Abuses
JURIST Guest Columnist Michael Kelly of Creighton University School of Law
says the Bush Administration's general disregard for international treaties and
standards facilitated an atmosphere in which US personnel could flout the
Geneva Conventions and abuse Iraqi prisoners...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Bush Administration has consistently signaled for three and a half years
that international law does not matter. The American military and civilian
personnel at Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad apparently received that signal
loud and clear. Not only did they fail to follow the requirements of the Geneva
Convention on Treatment of POW's, according to the Red Cross, no copies of
the treaty were to be found on-site.
The list of high-profile treaties broken or withdrawn by this government is a
long one that includes denunciation of the Rome Statute creating the
International Criminal Court, pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol to diminish
ozone-depleting gases, and unilateral withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic
Missile Treaty over initial Russian objections. An overwhelming majority of
nations condemned each of these moves as irresponsible and self-serving,
but Washington paid little heed - steadfastly pursuing short-term political
gains instead of America's long-term global interests. International law was
undermined and flouted.
When the invasion of Iraq became a front-burner issue, the world implored the
Bush Administration not to do it, threatening everything from vetoes in the UN
to political recrimination. America again disregarded the objections and went
forward. The Security Council was subverted in the process and a creaky pre-
World War II theory of justified pre-emptive strikes was resurrected. Again
international law was cast aside.
When questions arose as to whether Geneva Convention protections would
be extended to those captured in Afghanistan, President Bush dismissed the
landmark 55-year-old treaty regime as a series of “legalisms” he would
consider in making his decision.
This unapologetic pattern of discounting the importance of international law
helped create an environment where it could easily by disregarded by those
who were supposed to follow it. That subtle message was especially potent
when coupled with the specific message to extract all information possible out
of detainees to help further the war on terrorism.
How can the privates and sergeants on the ground at Abu Ghraib be faulted
for following the lead of their commander-in-chief? They can be faulted
because they should be regarded as rational, thinking human beings - the
same as those they tortured. The fact that international law was simply
disregarded made the process easier, but no more excusable.
America has begun to reap the whirlwind of its policy-line ignoring
international law. It is held in the lowest regard foreign nations have had for it
in decades, and it suffers from diminished standing worldwide. The abuses at
Abu Ghraib are a particularly ugly gust of that whirlwind that has blown back
in Washington's face. Re-embracing international law and the United Nations
(and the unique legitimacy each can bestow) could help us weather and
avoid the fury of such storms."
Michael Kelly is Associate Professor of Law of International Law at Creighton
University School of Law in Omaha, Nebraska, and the co-author of Equal
Justice in the Balance, Assessing America's Legal Responses to the
Emerging Terrorist Threat (University of Michigan Press 2004).
May 19, 2004
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2004/05/reaping-whirlwind-departures-
from_19.php
_______________________________________________
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/
