Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

Military History Companion: war crimes
Although an exact definition of this much-used expression is not possible, largely because the term refers to a variety of different transgressions, war crimes could be said to be the violation of national and international laws and customs regarding the resort to war and the conduct of war, and other activities associated with war. Since the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials of 1945-8, it has been accepted in international law that war crimes include at least three types of activity: crimes against peace; crimes against the laws and customs of war (see laws of war) ; and crimes against humanity.

At the end of WW I there was some talk about putting the German war leaders on trial, particularly the hated kaiser, but a tacit recognition prevailed that it might not be such a good idea to delve too deep into who did what to whom and when. Having whipped up popular sentiment with propaganda about German baby-killers and the like this was awkward, but embarrassment is never a sentiment of much weight in information warfare and anyway the general populace was mentally exhausted. However, failure to follow through was to have serious repercussions for the British trying to engage popular sympathy in the USA prior to Pearl Harbor, where the not entirely unfounded suspicion remained ingrained that the USA had been tricked into WW I by British disinformation.

During WW II, the Allied powers had on several occasions made clear their intention to pursue and punish alleged war criminals. The war had seen appalling murders, persecution, and other outrages carried out against combatants and civilian populations alike, the most notorious being the systematic murder of several million people (mainly Jews) in Nazi Germany's death camps, and Japanese mistreatment and murder of POWs and civilians. There was general determination that those responsible should be brought to justice and that any future atrocities should also be punished.

In due course, the great majority of war criminals were tried under a national jurisdiction. In a small number of cases a different process was required, either because of the excessive nature of the crimes, or because the crimes took place outside any one geographical area and could therefore not readily be tried under a national jurisdiction. On 8 August 1945, three months after the surrender of Germany, the USA, Britain, France, and the USSR signed the London Agreement for the ?'Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis' and nineteen other states later subscribed. The London Agreement provided for an International Military Tribunal, which would sit in Nuremberg in Germany. The trials began in November 1945 and concluded in October 1946. There were 24 original defendants, one of whom committed suicide, one was declared unfit for trial, three were acquitted, four sentenced to lengthy prison terms, three sentenced to life imprisonment, and twelve sentenced to death by hanging. A similar process was held in Tokyo. The International Military Tribunal for the Far East sat from May 1946 to November 1948. Two of the 25 Tokyo defendants received prison sentences, sixteen were sentenced to life imprisonment, and seven were sentenced to death by hanging.

Article 6 of the August 1945 Charter for the Nuremberg Tribunal defined the three categories of crime. Crimes against peace related to violations under jus ad bellum (laws governing the legitimacy of war) and were defined as ?'planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing'. Crimes against peace were difficult to prove, and the attempt to do so was thought by some to be an example of retroactive legislation. Nevertheless, with the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 and other treaties and resolutions, there were sufficient grounds to try acts of aggression as infringements of international law.

Jus in bello (laws governing the conduct of war) thinking, on the other hand, drove the prosecution of crimes against the laws of war, which were defined in the Nuremberg Tribunal Charter as ?'murder, ill-treatment, or deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder of ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity'. In addition, it was accepted that violations of the laws of war could include other acts, such as the use of banned weapons or the misuse of the flag of surrender, which were not explicitly mentioned in the Charter but were covered elsewhere. Indeed, given that there already existed a sizeable body of international law, particularly the Geneva and Hague Conventions, against which the conduct of combatants could be tested, the prosecution of violations of the law of war were in many respects the least contentious aspects of the war crimes trials.

The Nuremberg Tribunal Charter defined crimes against humanity as ?'murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds'. As such, crimes against humanity were, like crimes against the laws of war, derived more from the jus in bello tradition. The war crimes tribunals were at their most adventurous where the prosecution of crimes against humanity were concerned. Since crimes against humanity could be committed ?'before or during the war', and since ?'any civilian population' (including, therefore, that of the offending state) was henceforth to be protected against such crimes, the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals tried a new and very broad category of offences. In this respect, the tribunals represented a serious challenge to the traditions of state sovereignty and non-interference; previously, a state had been more or less entitled to treat its citizens as it wished. There was also the defence of ex post facto legislation to contend with; those on trial for crimes against humanity argued that these new developments in international law could not logically or fairly be applied to actions and events which had already taken place.

More here: http://www.answers.com/topic/war-crime

The military goes where they are told and fights who we are told to fight, no more and no less.

For you to suggest that the military can refuse on its own to carry out the orders of our govt, or that the military can do whatever it wants, is to suggest that a military coup take place.

Its not a soldiers job to decide if our countries foreign policy is correct or not, our job is to be an arm of that policy, nothing more.

JTT,
I was on that "highway of death" after the war, and I know what was there.
Soldiers are "out of combat" if they have laid down their weapons, are wounded or otherwise incapable of fighting, or have already surrendered.
Those soldiers were fleeing with their weapons and supplies, and were fully capable of continuing the fight.
Its apparent that whoever wrote that article you quoted has no idea what happened, nor was that person ever anywhere that highway at the time.

Do yourself a favor and dont try to tell someone who was there what actually happened.

A duly elected government sent the troops to Iraq, after the intelligence agency, the CIA, advised Bush in regard to possible WMD. Now, ci wants us to all believe Bush made it all up and called the Pentagon one day and told them to attack Iraq. ci lives in a dream, not reality.

okie, You really don't know anything do you?

Bush: God told me to invade Iraq

President 'revealed reasons for war in private meeting'


By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
Friday, 7 October 2005


President George Bush has claimed he was told by God to invade Iraq and attack Osama bin Laden's stronghold of Afghanistan as part of a divine mission to bring peace to the Middle East, security for Israel, and a state for the Palestinians.


The President made the assertion during his first meeting with Palestinian leaders in June 2003, according to a BBC series which will be broadcast this month.

Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction
Salon exclusive: Two former CIA officers say the president squelched top-secret intelligence, and a briefing by George Tenet, months before invading Iraq.

By Sidney Blumenthal



(Clockwise from top left) Naji Sabri, George W. Bush, Colin Powell and George Tenet.

Sept. 6, 2007 | On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.

60 Minutes: CIA Official Reveals Bush, Cheney, Rice Were Personally Told Iraq Had No WMD in Fall 2002
Tonight on 60 Minutes, Tyler Drumheller, the former chief of the CIA's Europe division, revealed that in the fall of 2002, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and others were told by CIA Director George Tenet that Iraq's foreign minister ?- who agreed to act as a spy for the United States ?- had reported that Iraq had no active weapons of mass destruction program.

Provide a link for this claim, please.

mm, Go find it yourself. Don't ask me any questions, because I quit answering your infantile questions.

Interesting.

Your assertions get challenged, you ar forced to defend your claims, and you resort to calling names.

And you call me infantile??
I suggest you look in the mirror.
I am willing to defend my assertions while you apparently are not.

Sad, isn't it. Goodbye.

First of all, I have asked you before, please learn how to quote without making it look like I said what you insert. Blue lettering helps, but it is still not correct. If you need help to know how to do it, I will be glad to help.

Secondly, no proof is needed for proving what happened. It happened, period. We elected Congress and the president. Congress authorized war, and Bush acted. Do you wish to argue with that? And the CIA advised Bush that WMD in Iraq was a slam dunk. Do you wish to argue with that?

You still don't understand what congress approved. Are you so latent as not to understand what Tenent and two other CIA agents said about NO WMDs, and Bush and company ignored those warnings?

And god told Bush to attack Iraq befire 9-11?

No, c.i., you prove time and again that it is YOU who does not understand what Congress approved. I have posted many times the link to the AUMF, but I'm convinced you have not read that document ... not once.

You either didn't read it, or if you read it, you failed to pay attention ... or you cannot understand simple English ... or you have an aversion to reality.

One of the above must be correct.

From Wiki:

The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

Bush didn't attempt any diplomatic effort. The UN weapon's inspectors were in Iraq to look for WMDs.
Bush did not have the UN's approval to invade Iraq.

The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

Since Saddam didn't have the means to attack the US, there was no justification to attack Iraq. There was no threat from Iraq; our national security was not at stake. Again; UN weapon inspectors were in Iraq to make sure he didn't pose any threat to the US or anybody else. Bush chased them out to start his illegal war.

The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate

Why do you keep ignoring that part?

Basically, the summary of it says that we authorize you to go to war if you feel it is necessary and warranted. We are behind you 100% in this decision. It was hashed and rehashed and everyone knew what it meant, it meant war was just over the horizon. As far as diplomacy and inspections, that had been going on for years upon years, and the president and congress had essentially given up on that when this resolution was passed. The provisions for that were only window dressing on the document, leaving the door open if Hussein happened to do something spectacular or capitulated in some significant way, but of course he didn't. The rest is history.

Well, now we know there were no WMD, or anything else justifying invasion. Therefore, we should get out posthaste.

Edwards had it right. We should quickly limit our role to training Iraqis, and do almost all of this outside the country. We should leave a few thousand US troops to guard the embassy.

It is no wonder that the White House turned to Bob Novak to out Val Plame.

Novak's 'malpractice'
Friday, February 22, 2008


Bob Novak rarely let's the truth get in the way of a good sentence ("Security vs. the lawyers' lobby," Feb. 19 and PghTrib.com).
His most recent instance of journalistic malpractice came in a column about renewing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the nation's intelligence surveillance law.

Mr. Novak said that huge telecommunications special interests have been lobbying Washington for months to get a retroactive immunity in the law for private telecommunications firms that had been asked by the government to eavesdrop, which has delayed its passage.

But when Novak said that the nation's torts bar has been lobbying against the immunity provision -- which is absolutely untrue -- the confusion he creates makes it even more difficult to pass a law we need that balances national security with personal security.

But Novak is not a newcomer to endangering the work of the intelligence community, as we saw from the Valerie Plame episode, nor to insulting our intelligence.
William F. Goodrich
Downtown
The writer is an attorney and member of the Pennsylvania Association for Justice's board of governors.