Nothing the US did in Iraq could ever constitute a war crime

[Big Don]

Nothing the US did in Iraq could ever constitute a war crime that could be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court.
Radio Netherlands Worldwide
Excerpt:

This is the view of Richard Goldstone, a former chief international war crimes prosecutor and international law expert.

"I don't believe that any allegation that I have read or heard against the United States leaders comes anywhere near the sorts of crimes that the ICC has been set up to investigate. Genocide, crimes against humanity, serious war crimes - it just doesn't measure up."

Richard Goldstone - chief prosecutor at the war crimes tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda from 1994-1996 and currently head of a UN fact-finding team on international law violations - made his remarks during a Radio Netherlands Worldwide debate in The Hague.

Asked by a member of the audience if former President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, could ever see themselves on trial at the International Criminal Court for their role in the US-led invasion of Iraq - Judge Goldstone was unequivocal in his answer.

"Let me say I don't believe, while there are allegations of torture - and errors made in bombing of Kosovo during the Clinton administration - or some civilians being killed in Iraq or Afghanistan, I don't believe that any allegation that I have read or heard against the United States leaders comes anywhere near the sorts of crimes that the ICC has been set up to investigate. Genocide, crimes against humanity, serious war crimes - it just doesn't measure up, that's point one. I don't think it's a fair comparison."
End EXCERPT

 

[jarrod]

still doesn't make it a just war.

jf

 

[Big Don]

still doesn't make it a just war.

jf

While US and British aircraft were patrolling the UN designated no fly zones, Iraq, under the direction of Hussein repeatedly fired on the aircraft. That alone is casus belli

 

[jarrod]

casus belli doesn't mean it was a good idea. iraq is a quagmire that has drawn on too long, cost too many lives, too much money, & diverted resources from afghanistan. the US is weaker because of iraq, plain & simple. if iraq violated a UN no-fly, operations should have been undertaken with UN cooperation.

jf

 

[Twin Fist]

we WOULD have had UN co-operation, but China, Germany and France blocked it, and GUESS WHAT?? we found out that all three countries had deals with Saddam that were ILLEGAL under the UN sanctions.

wonder why they blocked us, huh?

face it, you are wrong, W R O N G wrong, misinformed, incorrect, WRONG.

 

[Tez3]

we WOULD have had UN co-operation, but China, Germany and France blocked it, and GUESS WHAT?? we found out that all three countries had deals with Saddam that were ILLEGAL under the UN sanctions.

wonder why they blocked us, huh?

face it, you are wrong, W R O N G wrong, misinformed, incorrect, WRONG.

Think you'll have to post up proof of that though.

 

[elder999]

we WOULD have had UN co-operation, but China, Germany and France blocked it, and GUESS WHAT?? we found out that all three countries had deals with Saddam that were ILLEGAL under the UN sanctions.

wonder why they blocked us, huh?

face it, you are wrong, W R O N G wrong, misinformed, incorrect, WRONG.

Actually, he's right. More to the point, international law recognizes only 3 legal reasons for war: self defense (which his firing on our planes doesn't really justify, since, as jarrod pointed out, it was under the auspices of the U.N. that those fly overs occured), to aid an ally with whom the country has a mutual defense pact, like NATO, and actions otherwise sanctioned by the U.N.

Legally, then, the lawyer in the original post is on shaky ground, if it can be proven that the invasion of Iraq by the U.S. wasn't self-defense.Since we clearly didn't invade to aid an ally with whom we have a mutual defense pact, and since it clearly wasn't santioned by the U.N. (whether it should have been or not is another story) the U.S. really could be guilty of a war crime in simply invading, never mind any subsequent or ancillary actions such as torture, rape, murder, destruction of property, death of civilians, etc., etc., etc. The lawyer quoted in the OP is probably correct:the worst things he's heard about U.S. actions pale in comparison to war crimes that have been prosecuted, but that doesn't resolve the legality of the invasion of Iraq in terms of international law governing the classification and conduct of "just war."

 

[Cryozombie]

Id be wary of stating that as a lawyer...

Arent we prosecuting the ones who said "Waterboarding isnt torture?"

It's only a hop skip and a jump to jailing ones who say "Nahh, you aint commiting a crime"

 

[howard]

Think you'll have to post up proof of that though.

Don't hold your breath. :lol:

 

[jarrod]

we WOULD have had UN co-operation, but China, Germany and France blocked it, and GUESS WHAT?? we found out that all three countries had deals with Saddam that were ILLEGAL under the UN sanctions.

wonder why they blocked us, huh?

face it, you are wrong, W R O N G wrong, misinformed, incorrect, WRONG.

i guess i must be wrong, otherwise you wouldn't have said it so many times.

jf

 

[JDenver]

we WOULD have had UN co-operation, but China, Germany and France blocked it, and GUESS WHAT?? we found out that all three countries had deals with Saddam that were ILLEGAL under the UN sanctions.

wonder why they blocked us, huh?

face it, you are wrong, W R O N G wrong, misinformed, incorrect, WRONG.

Are you suggesting that no prominent American companies were illegally trading with Iraq during the sanction period? If you are, I'll say you are misinformed.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

The UN is worthless. We are not as a country under any way shape or form under UN rule, as much as the apologists and non Americans would like you to think.
The sooner we toss the UN to the side the better, there has been few organizations on this planet as corrupt and inefficient and inept as the UN.
Without the Monetary support of the US the UN would be a penniless pile of dung, rather then the expensive pile of dung it is now.
Its pretty simple, those that support the war on Iraq have more then enough argument to justify it.

Those against the war on Iraq have more then enough wiggle room to argue it was unjust.

So really either side can effectively argue their point, there is just to much grey area here.

My view is the war was just, we just have had our heads up our asses and held our soldiers hands behind their backs as we have sent them to fight everywhere since Vietnam.

Maybe one day when we decide to go to war we actually do it to our fullest potential and simply go in an take out everything we need without hampering ourselves to make it look fair. Warfare should not be fair, it should be done to win plain and simple. I am not talking about nuking the place either, or commiting mass genocide. Committing to rebuild everything at our own cost is ridiculous as well.

 

[Twin Fist]

Think you'll have to post up proof of that though.

http://newsbusters.org/node/2538
Roth: The investigators say it was a global looting of the humanitarian program. companies from 66 nations, some household names. The report says a Daimler Chrysler employee paid $7,000 extra to Iraq on a contract violating U.N. sanctions. Volcker says the firm was unaware of the payment. The company said it could not comment because of pending investigations. A subsidiary of Volvo group of Sweden, Volvo CE, a maker of heavy equipment was listed as paying more than $300,000 in kickbacks in connection with contracts. The company told Volcker’s panel the conclusions are wrong and the evidence is unfamiliar to the firm. The panel says three Siemens subsidiaries paid kickbacks to the regime in order to get contracts. The company told Volcker's commission it's puzzled by the premature and unjustified findings. Most of the companies sited in the report are French or Russian. UN investigators remain perplexed why the UN system, member countries, and banks failed to stop the corruption even though they knew what was taking place

http://brain-terminal.com/posts/2004/02/17/how-the-un-helped-saddam-buy-allies

Some of these allies included “a close political associate and financial backer of French President Jacques Chirac”, “Russian political figures” including “the Russian ambassador to Baghdad” and “officials in the office of President Vladimir Putin”, “George Galloway, a British member of Parliament”, and even some—gasp!—”prominent journalists”.

I will take that apology now Irene. And you too Howard.How is it that this "arrogant american" as I was called recently knows about this, but apparently, so many DONT know what they are talking about?

 

[howard]

I will take that apology now Irene. And you too Howard.

:lfao:

I don't owe you an apology for anything.

First of all, your "evidence" contains nothing that says anything to the effect that "China, Germany and France... had deals with Saddam that were ILLEGAL under the UN sanctions (your words)." I'll make a big leap of faith and assume that you understand the difference between a country doing something - which happens through its government, clandestinely or not - and companies or citizens of countries doing something. If you do, what you posted does nothing to support your claim.

As for Russia, well, what a surprise. Crookedness from Putin's government? You don't say.

btw, when are you going to post your "proof" that Iraq was responsible for the 9/11 attacks? When you post incontrovertible proof of that, I'll apologize to you (Colin Powell's little act with the vial at the UN doesn't count). In the meantime, you can continue to embarrass yourself here.

 

[JDenver]

.....there has been few organizations on this planet as corrupt and inefficient and inept as the UN......

You're right. America is one of those few. Maybe it should be dismantled?

Without the Monetary support of the US the UN would be a penniless pile of dung, rather then the expensive pile of dung it is now.

Considering the US refused to pay its bill to the UN for almost a decade, prompting it to consider moving out of N.Y, this is an interesting statement.

Its pretty simple, those that support the war on Iraq have more then enough argument to justify it.

I'd love to hear them, cause none of the ones that I've heard are particularly compelling.

So really either side can effectively argue their point, there is just to much grey area here.

You can have your opinion, but I'll go with invading a country that has done nothing to you or your allies is pretty flimsy justification for a war which has cost hundreds of billions and killed and crippled tens of thousands.

Maybe one day when we decide to go to war we actually do it to our fullest potential and simply go in an take out everything we need without hampering ourselves to make it look fair. Warfare should not be fair, it should be done to win plain and simple.

I guess. What does 'winning' a war look like, anyways? WWII was born out of 'winning' WWI and pitting Germany into an economic mess.

As for hampering yourselves, and to the original post, I'm not sure that the use of white phosphorous, a banned weapon in civilian areas, could be considered 'hampered' or NOT a war crime.

 

[Twin Fist]

Don't hold your breath. :lol:

wasnt that you?

and wernt you wrong?

 

[Twin Fist]

:lfao:

btw, when are you going to post your "proof" that Iraq was responsible for the 9/11 attacks? When you post incontrovertible proof of that, I'll apologize to you (Colin Powell's little act with the vial at the UN doesn't count). In the meantime, you can continue to embarrass yourself here.

uh, dude?

I didnt claim that iraq was behind 9-11, so i am not sure what windmill you are chasing, but it is the WRONG one.

 

[Twin Fist]

You're right. America is one of those few. Maybe it should be dismantled?

uh, excuse me, exactly where in the **** are YOU from?

 

[JDenver]

uh, excuse me, exactly where in the **** are YOU from?

Canada.

I'm guessing that you disagree with me. So Americans feel like their country runs very efficiently? Politicans are not corrupt and neither are the banks or major corporations? The ballooning debt, economic collapse, dismal evaluations in healthcare and education by international standards, these are signals of efficiency and competency?

Maybe America isn't a festering hole of corruption-----but then maybe neither is the UN.

 

[Twin Fist]

Canada.

I'm guessing that you disagree with me. So Americans feel like their country runs very efficiently? Politicans are not corrupt and neither are the banks or major corporations? The ballooning debt, economic collapse, dismal evaluations in healthcare and education by international standards, these are signals of efficiency and competency?

Maybe America isn't a festering hole of corruption-----but then maybe neither is the UN.

no, the UN is in fact a morally and ethicly bankrupt failure of a once good idea.

america is great not because we dont fail, or dont have problems, we are great because we always aim high, DESPITE our problems.

what other western country has elected a black leader?

canada?

England?

France?

NOPE

america

what other country ALWAYS helps people?

where else are people lined up to get into?

all of this:
"I'm guessing that you disagree with me. So Americans feel like their country runs very efficiently? Politicans are not corrupt and neither are the banks or major corporations? The ballooning debt, economic collapse, dismal evaluations in healthcare and education by international standards, these are signals of efficiency and competency?"

is a direct result of too much leftist socialist crap.

get rid of that and america will be the leader in all things, just like we once were.

and i am not slamming on canada, i am just speakign up for america