Comments on: Meanwhile, in the Hague …

By: self

self — Sun, 16 May 2004 00:56:24 +0000

daniel, Could you elaborate on your phrase “minimal civilian casualties” ? What figures, how reliable, historical comparisons, defects and delayed deaths… the usual stuff. I think this is a story yet to be covered and to conclude the damage as minimal at this point may be a premature judgement.

By: Tom Doyle

Tom Doyle — Sat, 15 May 2004 09:21:31 +0000

“I personally don’t have much time for the Hague tribunal; I think that the US opposition to it on grounds of national sovereignty were valid and I don’t like unaccountable international institutions.” a different view http://www.benferencz.org/remarks2.htm“> FROM NUREMBERG TO ROME: A PERSONAL ACCOUNT By Benjamin Ferencz “Prosecuting crimes against peace and humanity was not invented at Nuremberg in 1945. Since ancient days, the legality of was itself and how wars were waged had been debated by renowned scholars from Plato to Grotius. Over 200 years ago, Immanuel Kant’s Zum Ewigen Frieden called for the protection of peace and human rights through the rule of international law.”

By: Randy Paul

Randy Paul — Fri, 14 May 2004 14:21:24 +0000

How can you make a statement like that? They haven’t even prosecuted anyone yet.

By: Aakash

Aakash — Fri, 14 May 2004 05:49:36 +0000

This entry is quite good, and raises good points. I am glad that you think that the U.S. arguments against the ICC on sovereignty grounds were valid; I have made those arguments myself, when that was being debated. As for the Hague Inquisition, that Kangaroo Court is illegitimate, and a farce. It should never have been formed.

By: m

Thu, 13 May 2004 23:23:09 +0000

I evaluate likely events in this manner: I ask, is action X one of the most vile, evil, pile of shit things some one could do to other people? If yes, then the US of A is probably doing it. 527 years of despicable bullshit and counting. While other nation states are nothing to brag about either, it will be quite a day when this one dies. not to be overly rhetorical

By: Donald Johnson

Donald Johnson — Thu, 13 May 2004 21:07:32 +0000

I’d include among the minimal civilian casualties the unknown number of people who’ve died as a result of the sewage flowing in the streets. That could easily exceed the several thousand (where several means 4-10) civilians killed by bombs, bullets, and artillery, but AFAIK, no one is counting. But yeah, if you’re just looking at those actually at the receiving end of some American bomb, then the numbers are much smaller than what many in the antiwar movement predicted, presumably because Saddam’s army chose to fade away rather than turn Baghdad into Stalingrad. I do have a bit of a quarrel with antiwar groups that came out with these predictions—it should have crossed their minds that Saddam’s army might fold without putting up much of a fight, though it wasn’t certain, and people who want to do casualty forecasts and maintain their credibility should include best case as well as worst case scenarios in their predictions. On the torture issue, like most American atrocities it’s been hidden in plain sight all along and the only thing surprising about it are the photos. I’ve always wondered what it would take to get the American press to treat an American war crime with the seriousness it deserved and now we know—it takes pornographic pictures on the front pages of the world’s newspapers, resulting in a foreign policy disaster that can’t be locked away in the journalistic ghetto on page A16. One other random thought—people keep saying (though not here that I’ve seen) that only democracies openly admit their atrocities and allow them to be condemned in the press. That’s false—North Vietnam’s land reform of the 50’s resulted in several thousand killings (where several means between 3 and 15) and this was condemned in North Vietnam’s press. Ho Chi Minh ultimately apologized for it, as did Giap, though the wording of Giap’s apology leaves something to be desired. Maybe people can think of other examples where an authoritarian regime engaged in self-criticism. I don’t bring this up to praise North Vietnam, but just to point out that breast-beating about one’s own crimes isn’t necessarily confined to democracies. And anyway, there’s nothing praiseworthy in confessing to a crime when you’re caught in the act . The same senators who act concerned probably approved Negroponte’s appointment to be the new Iraqi proconsul. For anyone interested in my Vietnam tangent, (I’m going for a tangent-setting record here) the info on the North Vietnamese land reform atrocities came from Duiker’s biography of Ho Chi Minh, though you can also find it summarized in (ahem) Chomsky’s Political Economy of Human Rights vol 1. Chomsky relies heavily on historian Edwin Moise, who wrote a book on land reform in Vietnam and China. Duiker uses Moise and others. Sheehan also discusses the event in his Vietnam book.

By: Barry

Barry — Thu, 13 May 2004 15:22:30 +0000

In addition, last I heard, Gen. ‘Guantanmo’ Miller has been put in charge of the Iraqi prison system. That’d be the same SOB who suggested having the MP’s ‘prep’ the prisoners for interrogation. So what is happening is that the system for commiting abuses is being strengthened, while a few sacrifices are being made. And from the viewpoint of the Pentagon/White House, a one-star reserve general counts as lower-ranking.

By: Randy Paul

Randy Paul — Thu, 13 May 2004 14:35:48 +0000

Ginger Yellow: The US is a signatory to the Convention Against Torture, the treaty has been ratified by the Senate and the implementing legislation to my knowledge has been signed into law. The current president’s father also signed into law the Torture Victim’s Protection Act. Those who seek to rationalize the use of torture need to examine the US Constitution and should acquaint themselves with Article VI Clause 2. They might also want to read the 8th Amendment.

By: Matthew (ashamed brit)

Matthew (ashamed brit) — Thu, 13 May 2004 14:34:59 +0000

Let’s also remember that the “successful war with minimal civilian casualties” included napalm bombing, depleted uranium, and generous use of air bombardments (“surgical” ones of course)… And the casualties increase daily…

By: Ginger Yellow

Ginger Yellow — Thu, 13 May 2004 10:21:04 +0000

I think you’re being astoundingly naive. The US refused to ratify the Convention on Torture for a reason. It has a long history of torturing detainees itself and assisting other countries in torturing people (think Operation Condor, or the more recent “rendering” of detainees to third countries). Britain’s record isn’t much better, although at least the attitude seems to have changed during the 90s. If, say, Norman Tebbit stood up in parliament and said what Inhofe said, he’d lose the whip immediately. That Rush Limbaugh can get away with calling these atrocities “no worse than a frat hazing” is a stain on the American media. And if you consider having your military career ended suitable punishment for allowing widespread abuse and torture under your command, then you have a seriously screwed up sense of proportion. The commanders should be facing twenty plus years in jail.

By: tr

tr — Thu, 13 May 2004 09:45:51 +0000

Dan: it reminds me of this old quote “Be nice to people on your way up because you’ll meet them on your way down.” As the way down is likely to happen after most of the people reading this thread have died, it need not apply to us, only our great grandchildren!

By: One-Eyed Undertaker

One-Eyed Undertaker — Thu, 13 May 2004 09:29:52 +0000

So who’s in favor of hauling Private First Class Lynddie England in front of the UN Torture Convention for crimes against humanity?

By: JamesW

JamesW — Thu, 13 May 2004 08:58:59 +0000

The American soldiers and intelligence operatives who carried out, and are probably still carrying out, torture in Abu Ghraib and secret jails around the world are guilty of a crime under international as well as domestic law – not the ICC but the UN Torture Convention and other human rights instruments. They have joined the band of modern pirates that any state may prosecute. If I were involved in Abu Ghraib, and escaped prosecution in the US, I wouldn’t go on holiday in Spain or Belgium. A case has started in London brought by Iraqi victims of British abuse in Basra for redress under the European Convention on Human Rights. This is a fairly long shot, but not pie in the sky; the UK government had to settle out of court in an ECHR case brought years ago by the German widow of a Moroccan officer who took part in General Oufkir’s failed coup against King Hassan of Morocco, fled in a plane to Gibraltar, and was handed back to a grisly fate by British officials. Human rights by definition apply to everyone under a state’s jurisdiction.

By: Dan Simon

Dan Simon — Thu, 13 May 2004 07:48:57 +0000

TR: I don’t know if 2054 is the right date, or if China and the Muslim world are the right future superpowers, but otherwise, you’re exactly right. When the US grows weak, we can safely expect it to gain a newfound affection for international agreements. And we can also expect the US to attempt to use these agreements—if, indeed, there are any such beasts left by then—in petty and self-serving ways, to increase its own power at the expense of the more powerful, all the while invoking grand internationalist principles and claiming noble, altruistic intentions. Hypocritical self-interest, after all, is what international diplomacy is all about, and American diplomacy is no exception. I daresay today’s European and third-world advocates of the ICC are no different.

By: pepi

pepi — Thu, 13 May 2004 07:29:42 +0000

tom doyle: yes, you’re absolutely right. I never implied there was a “normal” level of torture that could be accepted. I just said I could imagine some physical violence to prisoners, of the illegal and unacceptable kind too, but that one could describe as “interrogation tactics getting out of hand”. The freak show with safari photos doesn’t fit in that description. But you’re right, I guess it’s futile trying to find a context in which a degree of abuse could “make sense” and therefore be expected, be likely to happen, occasionally – again, not in the “be acceptable” meaning, just in terms of at least originating from something with a purpose… other than sadism itself.