1
   

"Never Again"

 
 
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2004 12:21 pm
Anyone remember this quote? Made after world war 2 to the world, promising that we would never again allow a mass murder like that. Again made after Rwandans were slaughtered in the genocide ten years ago.... I have been to Rwanda. This is a little note to everyone in this world. "Never again".... Isn't it time to live up to our promises? The Bush government are not the ones I am targeting, I am not anti-bush, I am anti war! I hate the idea of this kind of death again. I am more than sick of people turning their backs on those in need. Let's lift our voices! "Never again!" Remember?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,418 • Replies: 19
No top replies

 
Rick d Israeli
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2004 12:26 pm
Say that to the media. But I get your point.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2004 01:00 pm
One must certainly sympathize with your goal. You say that you are anti-war, but it seems to me that there will, from time to time, be cases where the only way to prevent a country from committing genocide will be to use a military invasion to prevent it.

Obviously, diplomacy, economic sanctions, etc., would be vastly preferrable to war, but there will certainly be cases where a country cannot be persuaded to stop committing mass murder of an ethnic group within its borders.
0 Replies
 
Radikal
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2004 06:17 pm
The Killing Fields
What did the world Community do about the Cambodian Slaughter?

What is being done now in Sudan?

Does American Media,especially TV, merely report on wars or encourage them?
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2004 06:20 pm
Quote:
What is being done now in Sudan?


Sudan progress.
0 Replies
 
Jim
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2004 09:38 pm
Judith - I agree that the mass muders in Rwanda were horrible and should have been stopped. I also agree that war is awful. But how could we have stopped the mass murders in Rwanda without the use of force?

As Radikal has pointed out, there is mass murder going on right now in the Sudan (against both Black Muslims and Black Christians, according to the BBC). Of course this should be stopped. But how?
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2004 09:44 pm
Sudan... I wish i could raise a hat to George Bush or whomever else. The article, Brand X, is grossly exaggerating the success, which, by the way, is not the first peace accords in Sudan, neither was it achieved by the U.S. only (negotiators involved mostly people from neighboring countries), nor did it solve the problem of purposefull starvation in Darfour. I'll raise a glass to success when there are signs of peace, not just temporary truce.
0 Replies
 
Radikal
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2004 05:32 am
!
Quote:
Recycling War Crimes

Dismissing the Geneva Conventions is nothing new. Fifty-eight years ago, after World War II, the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal showed that by labeling certain Allied soldiers terrorists, the Third Reich used a legalistic policy for attempting to get around the Geneva Conventions. Openly armed and uniformed Allied troops had been landed behind German lines in occupied France and Norway. In response, Adolf Hitler signed the Commando Order.

Hitler's legalistic directive claimed that Allied units inside of German occupied territory were engaged in terrorist activities. Thus the Commando Order provided for captured commandos to be summarily executed. A related order directed the population to retaliate against Allied airmen who parachuted from disabled aircraft. The airmen had been accused of indiscriminately and illegally attacking civilians -- in bombing raids -- thus making them terrorists. Clearly, similar principles were adopted by Gonzales so that Bush could ignore the Geneva Conventions to advance his policies for his so-called "war on terror."

By February 2002, the White House issued a statement declaring that while the United States would adhere to the Geneva Conventions in the conduct of the war in Afghanistan, captured Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters would be exempt from prisoner of war status under the Conventions. Administration lawyers believed that this maneuver would protect U.S. interrogators who mistreated prisoners and also their superiors in Washington so that they could not be subjected to prosecutions under the War Crimes Act.

The Nuremberg Tribunal had ruled that various defendants were liable for the abuse of prisoners of war. The Court conceded that some captured combatants were physically depleted. But this was not the cause of their death. They had been made to work in harsh conditions and deprived of food, clothing, and hygiene. The Tribunal concluded that such mistreatment violated a commander's responsibility to insure that prisoners received proper care and were not compelled to work in dangerous conditions. The summary execution of prisoners who allegedly had attempted to escape was also criminal. In addition, commanders were culpable for issuing and transmitting orders that transferred prisoners to the Security Police for "special treatment."

Admitting Nothing

On May 15, 2004, The New York Times published a column by Alberto Gonzales titled "The Rule of Law and the Rules of War." This was a defense of the Bush administration's use of torture, sexual abuse and severe "stress" techniques against detainees in Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay and Iraq. Reading Gonzales' article can only lead to two possible conclusions: either Gonzalez is completely ignorant of the Third Geneva Convention and its well established interpretations since 1949, or he has simply become an unmitigated propagandist for the war crimes of the Bush administration.

Gonzales' column was printed only two days after Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and the Joint Chiefs of Staff vice chairman General Peter Pace were summoned by a U.S. Senate committee to admit that interrogation techniques ordered by the Pentagon in Iraq violated the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war, and were "not humane." During questioning, Wolfowitz hesitated for a long time before answering the question (which he first tried to avoid): "Do you consider keeping a bag over a prisoner's head for 72 hours to be humane?" Grudgingly, Wolfowitz finally said, "no."

Sounding like their counterparts at Nuremberg fifty-eight years ago, Wolfowitz and Pace claimed ignorance of the "Rules of Engagement Relative to Interrogation" approved by Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez. The top US commander in Iraq, Sanchez had adopted a policy that allowed prisoners to be placed in painful positions, deprived of sleep for up to 72 hours, threatened with dogs and kept in isolation for more than 30 days. Each of these methods is a clear violation of the Third Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners of War.

Contradicting his own January 25, 2002 memo (discussed above), Gonzales claimed, "There has never been any suggestion by our government that the [Geneva] conventions do not apply in that conflictÂ…. The United States government understands and seeks to comply with its legal obligations and will act swiftly and responsibly under the law to address violations of those obligations."

However, Article 12 of the Third Geneva Convention states:

"Prisoners of war are in the hands of the enemy Power, but not of the individuals or military units who have captured them. Irrespective of the individual responsibilities that may exist, the Detaining Power is responsible for the treatment given them."

Who's Responsible For What?

Even if Bush and Rumsfeld did not personally order the violation of the Convention, Article 12 of the Convention holds them -- not the individual soldiers directly involved -- responsible, as the leadership of the "Detaining Power," for the maltreatment of detainees. Thus, in theory, not only General Sanchez but President Bush and his Defense Secretary Rumsfeld should be placed on trial for violating the Geneva Convention, and also the 1996 federal War Crimes Act, and the Torture Convention.

The Geneva Convention's Articles 13 to 17 protect prisoners of war against interrogation, never mind torture. POWs are only obliged to provide their name, rank, date of birth and serial number. They must be treated "humanely" and with "respect," and may not be subjected to "cruel," "humiliating" or "degrading" treatment or any "form of coercion." Article 17 states:

"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatsoever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

The Convention also stipulates that prisoners must not be held in close confinement and "shall be quartered under conditions as favorable as those for the forces of the Detaining Power who are billeted in the same area." The now notoriously over-crowded cells and tents of Abu Ghraib prison are textbook violations of the Geneva Conventions.

Gonzales claimed that Iraq was a "very different situation" to Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, because "in February 2002 President Bush determined that Al Qaeda terrorists were not prisoners of war under the treaty known as the Third Geneva Convention."

It is false that Al Qaeda supporters captured in Afghanistan are not covered by the Geneva Convention because Al Qaeda "is not a state." Article 2 of the Convention specifies that it governs the conduct of the signatories (such as the U.S.) even if the detainees were fighting for a power that had not signed the Convention. Moreover, the alleged Al Qaeda members were covered by Article 4, as "members of militias or volunteer corps" fighting in defense of the Taliban administration, at the time the de facto government of Afghanistan, a signatory of the Geneva Convention.

Bush claims that Taliban soldiers do not qualify as prisoners of war because the Convention stipulates that combatants must distinguish themselves from the civilian population, "which the Taliban clearly did not." But Article 4 of the Convention makes no such distinction. It simply requires members of militias, volunteer corps and "organized resistance movements" to have a commander, have distinctive insignia, carry arms openly and conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Article 4 also protects inhabitants of a territory who, on the approach of the enemy, "spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units."

White House Lawyer Tortures Truth

Gonzales declared that alleged combatants must "earn" prisoner-of-war status by complying with the Convention. In fact, the treaty says the opposite: anyone who has been captured after committing a "belligerent act" must be protected until a properly constituted tribunal decides their status.

Accordingly, Article 5 of the Convention makes it clear that Bush had no right to make a unilateral, executive decision to strip the Taliban of legal protections. It specifies that where any doubt arises as to whether or not a person is a POW, the detainee shall be accorded the protection of the Convention until a "competent tribunal" has determined their status. No such tribunal had been provided by Washington. This is consistent with the Bush administration's inventing an arbitrary, extra-legal machinery of rules.

Gonzales claimed that the invasion of Afghanistan was a war against the Afghan people, indiscriminately conducted against ordinary civilians. This then raises the following question: if the troops of a U.S.-led coalition couldn't recognize combatants, but instead regarded any civilian as a potential "enemy combatant," then isn't it most likely that most of those taken to Guantanamo Bay for interrogation and endless incarceration are innocent civilians?

Bush "reaffirmed" his claim that the U.S. has a policy of treating Al Qaeda and Taliban detainees "humanely" and "in keeping with the principles of the Third Geneva Convention." But released British detainees from Guantanamo Bay have confirmed that the prisoners there have been treated just as cruelly as those in Abu Ghraib.

Recently, Gonzales has spoken on behalf of the White House with statements that reveal the administration's complete and general contempt for international law. The crudeness of his legal analysis and the cynicism of his defense is a direct expression of the increasingly Great Criminal style of the Bush administration.

Evidence is mounting of a Bush administration policy for torturing detainees at Guantanamo Bay and Iraq. A case can be made for war crimes charges to be filed against all of the American high officials, civilian and military, responsible for the invasion and conquest of Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, Myers, Cambone and others should all be placed in the dock. It is impossible for these perpetrators to ever wind up as defendants in a trial such as was held in Nuremberg sixty years ago. However, the U.S. Constitution does provide for the impeachment of the President or government officials who can be charged with "high crimes and misdemeanors."

Conspiring on January 25, 2002 to violate the 1996 federal War Crimes Act, the international Third Geneva Convention, and the Torture Convention, Bush and Gonzales should promptly be made to lead a parade of the other administrators in front of a Special Prosecutor to be tried for conspiracy to commit war crimes.


Frederick Sweet is Professor of Reproductive Biology in Obstetrics and Gynecology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. You can email your comments to [email protected]
0 Replies
 
judithlawrence
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2004 10:25 am
even today
jim,
but not only did we not do anything, we were told not to do anything, we were ordered not to do anything. Canadian peacekeepers has to stand and watch people die in front of them or be severly punished themselves! Is that what we want as an option? Either fight or watch it happen?
0 Replies
 
Jim
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2004 12:56 pm
I don't know Judith. You'd think there ought to be a responible middle ground between doing nothing and full scale invasion. I just don't know what that would be.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2004 04:08 pm
Jim wrote:
I don't know Judith. You'd think there ought to be a responible middle ground between doing nothing and full scale invasion. I just don't know what that would be.

You can try diplomacy, you can try economic sanctions, you can make threats of future consequences. However, if the people doing the ethnic cleansing don't stop, or if the non-violent method you are using appears as though it will take so long that many will die while you are negotiating, I guess I'd assert that your remaining choice is between letting the people die and invading.
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2004 04:17 pm
Anyone saw The Last Just Man documentary? It is about Romeo Dallaire's UN mission in Rwanda during genocide. 'Tis possible I already wrote about it. It is kinda hard to get for it is not widely distributed - have to catch it at some academic center or find out who has it (human rights centers or international relations institutes). It won a Human Rights Film Festival award last year I think, and it is, hands down, one of the most powerful movies I have ever seen. I bought it for $80 after I saw it, just so I can show it to my students. Also bought his book "Shaking Hands With the Devil". Remarkable personna, a general who was crushed and driven to two attempts of suicide, but still believes in ideals behind the UN and peacekeeping.
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2004 04:30 pm
Quote:
Bush claims that Taliban soldiers do not qualify as prisoners of war because the Convention stipulates that combatants must distinguish themselves from the civilian population, "which the Taliban clearly did not." But Article 4 of the Convention makes no such distinction. It simply requires members of militias, volunteer corps and "organized resistance movements" to have a commander, have distinctive insignia (1), carry arms openly (2) and conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war(3).



(1) The Taliban/AlQueda fighters have NO distinctive insignia to allow for distinguishing them from non-combatants.

(2) Firing arms from civilian occupied buildings, hospitals, mosques (in direct violation of the laws of war) and then hiding your weapons when combatants seek you out is not according to the rules of war.

(3) Killing captured soldiers and civilians (as the Tali/AlQ forces have done ON CAMERA) is NOT conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Looks like they are zero out of three on qualifying as militia or 'volunteer corps' according to your own post.

Anything else?
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2004 04:40 pm
Thanks , Dag, for the "Last Just Man" mention. I've been poking around for a copy. No luck so far. Here's a review for anyone who cares to have a look..

The Last Just Man
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2004 07:36 pm
They won't have it by the swamp, gus. When I'm done with my class, I can mail it to you as long as you mail it back. Copyright is not cleared for public viewing, because the distributor is too poor to buy the rights. oh sigh.
0 Replies
 
judithlawrence
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2004 12:55 pm
yeah, recently the group I went with had a documentary on Manitoba Moments. It wasnt as good as some of the material we had obtained, but that;s the way things go. The story is a terrible one, because it repeats itself so often. I think if regular people would all stand together and do something more often our world would be a safer place. We have to take a stand in our own future.
I would love to find out where that movie is
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2004 11:53 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
One must certainly sympathize with your goal. You say that you are anti-war, but it seems to me that there will, from time to time, be cases where the only way to prevent a country from committing genocide will be to use a military invasion to prevent it.

Obviously, diplomacy, economic sanctions, etc., would be vastly preferrable to war, but there will certainly be cases where a country cannot be persuaded to stop committing mass murder of an ethnic group within its borders.


Well said.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2004 08:40 am
Anyone with even a cursory understanding of history must know that peace is not necessarily the absence of war.

At the same time, there is a limit to what any nation or people can do to stop 'man's inhumanity to man' in another place. Some even here on A2K have criticized the current U.S. administration for freeing the people of Iraq from a butcher stating that it was meaningless because we haven't done the same for others.

I also believe the wise saying that all that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to stand by and do nothing.

I think the 'good men' still outnumber the bad and if 'good men' everywhere demanded goodness, we would see a lot of evil cease to exist. But with polarization so strong everywhere--just look at the differences in opinion here on A2K--the prospect of achieving more universal agreement is daunting.
0 Replies
 
judithlawrence
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jun, 2004 06:08 pm
while that is true in many ways, while the absence of war usually is just time for us to brew up a bigger one, sometimes it's the peace we can find in ourselves that is the only peace in the world, at any time. So why do we still allow this to happen? We are a new generation right? Does that not mean we have the choice to change?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jun, 2004 06:21 pm
Change to what though? A decision to mind our own business and let everybody else in the world fend for themselves no matter what happens? Or a decision to use our wealth, our superior strength, and our blessings for good as we are able?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Africa is a dying continent - Discussion by Pharon
Congo: The World Capital of Killing - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Notes from Africa - Discussion by dagmaraka
Tunisia From October 5 to 18, 2007 - Discussion by cicerone imposter
I hope this works out for Darfur... - Discussion by ossobuco
Let's see how well you know Africa - Discussion by gustavratzenhofer
Anyone know a lot about Sierra Leone? - Discussion by dlowan
Sudanese find peace? - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » "Never Again"
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/25/2019 at 07:47:55