Well, taking into consideration the various war crimes that the USMil has now been accused of and others, they've pretty much already (unofficially) been found guilty of, it's hard to imagine that these crimes weren't part of the plan, all along.
And what's even more absurd is that the USGov/Mil has pushed the UN to guarantee them immunity against lawsuits brought against them once the handover of power to Iraqis occurs.
Here they are, basically found guilty of torturing Iraqi civilians, not giving them basic rights guaranteed under American Law (remember, Iraq is being occupied by America), let alone the rights guaranteed them by the Geneva Convention and International Law, and they don't want to take responsiblity for these acts?
What an incredibly AMERICAN thing to do.
Oh, I broke all these laws and hurt all of these people, I killed more than a few, too, and I don't want to have to compensate anyone for these actions?
Is the USGov being run by a 12 year-old??
Don't answer that! I already know that he's got the maturity of a 12 year-old.
And if you think all of this is just the ranting of a left-wing nut with his own website, think again:
"In the lead-up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw, at minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility; at worst, lying, incompetence and corruption,"That's a quote from retired Marine General Anthony Zini's new book Battle Ready.
This isn't about being left-wing or right-wing.
If you're interested in the core values of America, you know that what the Bush 43 Admin, the USGov and the USMil have all done since 911 is wrong. They've wiped out the governments of two countries, killed untold tens of thousands of innocent civilians, tortured many others, and half of those acts had nothing to do with 911.
What's worse is that this isn't a partisan issue. Both sides are guilty here. The Dems in the USGov did not stand up with many Americans to say that what was about to happen abroad and at home (the Patriot Act and friends) was wrong. Our own government did not heed the loudest and clearly most accurate voices of the US citizenry.
Our entire government has let us down.
Not just the right, but the left, as well.
Too bad there's no middle who could take charge.
Read how the now defunct news blog at ThePete.Com covered the USGov's punishment of countries that didn't support US immunity in the ICC from July 2003.
Read coverage of the USMil's immunity from lawsuits in post-hand-over Iraq at the UK's Observer/Guardian website.
Read about this story over at the BBC News website.
Funny how I can't find any American news sources for the USMil-war-crimes-immunity story.
You can head over to the CBS News website to read about Anthony Zinni's new book and the wonderful things he says about the USGov/Mil's planning of the Iraq Attack. I'm being sarcastic, he has very little good to say, apparently.
Just to add a bit more context to Zinni's comments, you can check out a Scottsman article that details a memo by UKGov Foreign Secretary Jack Straw's office that describes the USMil's actions in Iraq as "heavy handed". Again, no American source for this story... Jeez, you'd think there was some sort of conspiracy or something... ;)
From ThePete.Com's now defunct news blog:
USGov PUNISHES THOSE WHO DID NOT PLAY ALONG WITH INT. CRIMINAL COURT EXEMPTION
50 countries have lost their financial aid from the US thanks to their lack of support regarding the International Criminal Court exemption the USGov is looking to get for itself. This is what happens when daddy (America) doesn't like what one of the children (any other country in the world) does. He punishes them.Is anyone surprised why there is so much animosity toward the US these days? For all the good the US does, the USGov undoes it with things like this.That above story comes with both American and Australian sources. First, from CNN.com:
And from ABC Radio (in Australia):U.S. cuts funding to 50 nations
From CNN State Department Producer Elise Labott
Tuesday, July 1, 2003 Posted: 6:23 PM EDT (2223 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States has made good on its threat to punish countries that have not signed an agreement exempting American military and other personnel from prosecution in the International Criminal Court, declaring some 50 countries ineligible for U.S. military aid.
The countries include Colombia and six nations scheduled to become NATO members next year: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia and Slovenia.
Those countries that recognize the ICC and have not signed an "Article 98 agreement" by Tuesday's deadline now face a cut in military training funds and help with arms purchases from the United States.
The new restrictions involve $47 million in foreign military financing and $613,000 in military education and training, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Tuesday.
The cut in funding falls under the 2002 American Service Members Protection Act, passed to reflect U.S. opposition to the war crimes court amid fears of potentially politically motivated prosecution of U.S. personnel.
Boucher said 35 of the countries have been receiving U.S. military aid, but most of the money has already been spent for this fiscal year.
However, those countries will face a ban on aid for fiscal year 2004 if they have failed to sign an agreement before the new fiscal year begins in October.
The other countries that are now ineligible for U.S. military aid are: Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Brazil, Central African Republic, Costa Rica, Croatia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Fiji, Lesotho, Malawi, Mali, Malta, Namibia, Niger, Paraguay, Peru, Serbia and Montenegro, Samoa, South Africa, St. Vincent and Grenadines, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela and Zambia.
Colombia has been one of the largest recipients of U.S. military aid, receiving $98 million this year.
Boucher said all but $5 million of this year's allocation for Colombia has been spent, but the remainder is now frozen. However, he also noted that most U.S. aid to Colombia falls under counternarcotics assistance and is unaffected by the new regulations.
"As we proceed with this, we'll look at individual programs as well and decide whether they need waivers," Boucher said. "But our hope is to continue to work with governments to secure and ratify Article 98 agreements that protect American service members."
Several countries, including all NATO allies, are exempt from the new regulations, as are what the U.S. considers "major non-NATO allies": Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Jordan, New Zealand and South Korea.
U.S. President George W. Bush has issued waivers for 22 others, some of which have signed, but not ratified, an agreement.
Under the new legislation countries that are parties to the ICC, but have signed an article 98 agreement, still need a waiver to avoid a cut in funding. Gabon, Gambia, Mongolia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, and Tajikistan are parties to the court, but were given a waiver by President Bush.
Afghanistan, Djibouti, Democratic Republic of Congo, East Timor, Ghana, Honduras, Romania, Albania, Bolivia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Botswana, Macedonia, Mauritius, Nigeria, Panama, and Uganda received temporary waivers for having signed, but not yet ratified the article 98 agreement with the U.S.
Since the treaty setting up the court was passed last year, other countries that have signed public Article 98 agreements with the Bush administration protecting U.S. personnel from the court are Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bhutan, Cambodia, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Georgia, India, Israel, Madagascar, the Maldives, the Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Micronesia, Nauru, Nepal, Nicaragua, Palau, the Philippines, Romania, Rwanda, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Uzbekistan.
At least seven other governments have signed agreements but have asked not to have them publicized. Several other countries have not signed agreements but have verbally agreed not to hand over U.S. personnel to the court for prosecution.
The July 1 deadline has prompted a number of the agreements. About 25 countries have signed in the past four months, and about half of those signed in the past few weeks.
Boucher said the U.S. is still pressing countries that have not signed agreements to sign.
From The Observer website:US cuts aid over ICC immunity refusals
The United States has cut military aid to 35 countries over their refusal to exempt US troops from prosecution by the new International Criminal Court (ICC).
The US, which is not a signatory to the ICC, has asked nations that recognise the court to exempt Americans from its provisions over fears they could be subject to politically-motivated prosecution by the court.
US officials says the suspension affects US allies like Brazil, Colombia and South Africa, the Baltic states as well as NATO hopefuls such as Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovakia and Slovenia.
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer says the US government will never accept the court.
"It's important to protect American service men and women and others in government," Mr Fleischer said.
Our Washington correspondent John Shovelan says the decision to punish countries that have refused to exempt US troops from prosecution is the latest in a series of attacks on the court by the Bush administration.
The US initially signed on to the court but later rescinded the agreement.
02/07/2003 10:35:01 | ABC Radio Australia News
From the BBC News website:Iraqis lose right to sue troops over war crimes
Military win immunity pledge in deal on UN vote
Kamal Ahmed, political editor
Sunday May 23, 2004
The Observer
British and American troops are to be granted immunity from prosecution in Iraq after the crucial 30 June handover, undermining claims that the new Iraqi government will have 'full sovereignty' over the state.
Despite widespread ill-feeling about the abuse of prisoners by American forces and allegations of mistreatment by British troops, coalition forces will be protected from any legal action.
They will only be subject to the domestic law of their home countries. Military sources have told The Observer that the question of immunity was central to obtaining military agreement on a new United Nations resolution on Iraq to be published by the middle of next month.
The new resolution will lift the arms embargo against Iraq, allowing the country to rearm its 80,000-strong army in readiness for taking over the nation's security once coalition forces finally leave.
'The legal situation in Iraq will be very difficult after 30 June, with some confusion over where jurisdiction lies,' said one Whitehall official. 'We wanted to ensure that British troops maintained the immunity they already have under Order 17.'
Order 17 refers to an agreement signed by the Coalition Provisional Authority giving American and British troops protection. That will now be extended to the new multinational force made up of British and American forces which will remain in Iraq at the invitation of the interim government.
Last night MPs demanded that Iraqi citizens should have some form of legal redress following allegations that people had died unnecessarily during gunfights with British forces.
'How is anyone in Iraq expected to bring a case in the British courts?' said Adam Price, the Plaid Cymru MP for Carmarthen East, who has been credited with uncovering many of the claims made against British troops.
'It is taking the idea of diplomatic immunity and applying it to 130,000 troops. There is a danger that you are actually going from immunity to being able to act with impunity.'
Price said that there should be a military ombudsman based in Iraq who could investigate any allegations against coalition troops and call for further action.
The British army was facing fresh embarrassment yesterday when the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, published a statement admitting that allegations against a British soldier now facing possible criminal proceedings over the death of an Iraqi civilian during an arrest were initially dismissed by the forces.
The Crown Prosecution Service is considering pressing criminal charges against the soldier over the same incident. 'The case currently under consideration by the CPS was referred to the Attorney General after charges were dismissed by the soldier's commanding officer,' Goldsmith said.
'In these circumstances, the case cannot be tried by court martial.'
Earlier this month the Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, said all allegations of mistreatment by British troops were thoroughly investigated by the Royal Military Police Special Investigations Branch.
The soldier's case is one of the two which he said had now reached 'an advanced stage with decisions on prosecutions pending'. The first picture of how the new Iraq will look after the handover is now starting to emerge. Senior diplomatic sources told The Observer that the new UN resolution, which will give a legal basis to the Iraqi interim government, will be published in the middle of next month.
It is likely to say that this government should be able to give 'strategic direction' to the multinational force although it will not take over full command, a move that has already been rejected by the American and British armies.
Iraq's new ministers will also take over control of the prisons, including the notorious Abu Ghraib jail where Americans have been photographed and videotaped abusing prisoners.
It will also be allowed to equip its army, run a police force and all of the departments of state.
'We will give full sovereignty back,' said one source closely involved in the negotiations. 'There must be a partnership between the Iraqi government and the multi-national force. There can't be subservience.'
Iraq will be allowed to control its oil revenues, which will raise $48 billion a year within the next three years, although it will have to pay tens of billions of pounds in reparations imposed following the Gulf war. After the invasion and occupation of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein's forces in 1990 and the subsequent war, the UN oversaw a reparations programme, mostly payable to the Kuwaiti government. Iraq has so far paid $18bn funded from its oil reserves.
After the new resolution is passed it will still have to use a proportion of its revenues to pay off the outstanding amount.
Diplomatic sources made it clear, however, that after the handover a lot of work would go into debt relief for areas of the country, particularly around Baghdad and in the north, where there are high levels of poverty.Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
From CBSNews.Com:Coalition forces 'seek immunity'
The coalition in Iraq wants its troops to remain immune from prosecution by Iraqis after the handover of power, it is reported.
Creating a sovereign Iraq should mean forces become subject to Iraqi laws.
But BBC Correspondent Jonathan Beale says UK and US forces want to remain under their own jurisdictions.
The Foreign Office said negotiations on gaining a new UN security council resolution on the handover are at an "extremely important stage".
Agreement on the resolution governing the return of Iraqi sovereignty, set for 30 June, needs to be reached in the next few weeks.
One of the biggest sticking points is the issue of whose laws the remaining foreign troops will be subject to - their own or Iraqi laws.
Giving them immunity is likely to be controversial after allegations of abuse by troops of Iraqis.
But, our correspondent reports, British and American governments want guarantees soldiers will remain under their own laws.
Under an order signed by the Coalition Provisional Authority, known as Order 17, coalition forces have immunity from prosecution.
Negotiators are seeking to prolong that arrangement after the transfer of power to a sovereign Iraq.
Former British army commander Colonel Bob Stewart said troops were not seeking immunity because they would continue to face court martials under international law or by national authorities.
"This is the normal way foreign forces are covered legally in a different country, because the law in Iraq is likely to be different from in the UK," he said.
This meant soldiers would not face severe penalties, such as the death penalty, for crimes considered more minor in their home state, he said.
But he criticised the "light" sentences for US soldiers who had already been found guilty at a court martial.
'Systematic torture'
Many believe Iraqis should have the right to seek redress in their own courts or the sovereignty of the new state would be undermined.
The news has emerged as the Independent on Sunday reveals more claims of prisoner abuse allegedly carried out by members of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment.
It reports that the High Court is to consider claims the regiment carried out the "systematic torture of Iraqi civilians under the direction of an officer".
Five Iraqis said to have been arrested along with Baha Mousa, who died in British custody, have given detailed witness statements to the newspaper about their alleged ordeal.
Lawyers and civil rights groups claim their evidence shows that officers were overseeing the alleged ill-treatment as an interrogation technique.
These claims follow a string of allegations of abuse against Iraqis and the release of a series of graphic images of prisoners being humiliated and tortured by US forces.(c)BBC MMIV
From Scotsman.Com:May 21, 2004
Gen. Zinni: 'They've Screwed Up'
(CBS) Accusing top Pentagon officials of "dereliction of duty," retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni says staying the course in Iraq isn't a reasonable option.
"The course is headed over Niagara Falls. I think it's time to change course a little bit or at least hold somebody responsible for putting you on this course," he tells CBS News Correspondent Steve Kroft in an interview to be broadcast on 60 Minutes, Sunday, May 23, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
The current situation in Iraq was destined to happen, says Zinni, because planning for the war and its aftermath has been flawed all along.
"There has been poor strategic thinking in this...poor operational planning and execution on the ground," says Zinni, who served as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Central Command from 1997 to 2000.
Zinni blames the poor planning on the civilian policymakers in the administration, known as neo-conservatives, who saw the invasion as a way to stabilize the region and support Israel. He believes these people, who include Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defense, have hijacked U.S. foreign policy.
"They promoted it and pushed [the war]... even to the point of creating their own intelligence to match their needs. Then they should bear the responsibility," Zinni tells Kroft.
In his upcoming book, "Battle Ready," written with Tom Clancy, Zinni writes of the poor planning in harsh terms. "In the lead-up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw, at minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility; at worst, lying, incompetence and corruption," he writes.
Zinni explains to Kroft, "I think there was dereliction in insufficient forces being put on the ground and [in not] fully understanding the military dimensions of the plan."
He still believes the situation is salvageable if the United States can communicate more effectively with the Iraqi people and demonstrate a better image to them.
The enlistment of the U.N. and other countries to participate in the mission is also crucial, he says. Without these things, says Zinni, "We are going to be looking for quick exits. I don't believe we're there now, and I wouldn't want to see us fail here."
Also central to success in Iraq is more troops, from the United States and especially other countries, to control violence and patrol borders, he says.
Zinni feels that undertaking the war with the minimum of troops paved the way for the security problems the U.S. faces there now, the violence Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recently admitted he hadn't anticipated.
"He should not have been surprised," says Zinni. "There were a number of people who before we even engaged in this conflict felt strongly that we underestimated...the scope of the problems we would have in [Iraq]."
The fact that no one in the administration has paid for the blunder irks Zinni. "But regardless of whose responsibility [it is]...it should be evident to everybody that they've screwed up, and whose heads are rolling on this?"
� MMIV, CBS Worldwide Inc. All Rights Reserved.
US tactics 'heavy handed' says Straw memo
Sun 23 May 2004
BRIAN BRADY WESTMINSTER EDITOR
THE FIRST cracks in Britain�s coalition with the United States over the occupation of Iraq were exposed last night by a leaked government memo which revealed deep misgivings about America�s "heavy-handed" tactics in the war-torn country.
The damning document, produced by a team working for Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, disclosed private reservations within Tony Blair�s administration about Washington�s approach to the post-war occupation.
The detailed memo, sent to senior ministers and top officials last week as a "progress report" on the occupation, stressed the need for the UK government to press the Americans to soften their approach and avoid aggressive responses "which would jeopardise our objectives".
It also talked of "the need to redouble our efforts to ensure a sensitive and sensible US approach to military operations".
The revelations shatter the government�s long-held insistence that there are no differences between Downing Street and the White House over Iraq.
The six-page memo suggests that the US tactics have particularly damaged support among ordinary Iraqis and stirred up much of the unrest which has exploded into violence in recent months.
And, in a startling admission, it also declares that the "scandal" over the abuse of Iraqi prisoners in Coalition-run jails has damaged the "moral authority" of Britain and the US as they struggle to justify their decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein�s dictatorial regime.
"We should not underestimate the present difficulties," the document states, in a section headed �Problems�. "Heavy-handed US military tactics in Fallujah and Najaf some weeks ago have fuelled both Sunni and Shi�ite opposition to the Coalition and lost us much public support inside Iraq."
The memo, reported in the Sunday Times, adds: "The scandal of the treatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib [prison] has sapped the moral authority of the Coalition, inside Iraq and internationally."
The document also discloses that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) is considering two options for troop deployments to reinforce its military presence in southern Iraq, both of which would involve extending the area patrolled by British soldiers.
Since the scandal over the brutal abuse of prisoners at the US-run Abu Ghraib facility, Blair has been scrupulously careful not to criticise the conduct of his American allies, despite growing calls at home to distance his administration from that of President George Bush over the issue.
But Straw�s team in the Foreign Office have been less restrained. The official briefing document, produced by the Iraq directorate within his department, was issued on May 19 and entitled �Iraq: The Medium Term�. It was circulated to the most senior figures in the government amid hectic preparations for the handover of sovereignty back to the Iraqis at the end of next month.
But while it openly discusses the private concerns of the government over the progress of the occupation, the document also provides ministers with a series of "public lines to take", apparently to cover up the concerns. The official script instructs ministers to go no further than acknowledging that "the security situation in Iraq is difficult".
The shocking disclosures about the strength of feeling over Iraq within the government will add to the growing pressure on Blair to voice the mounting criticisms of US policy to President George Bush himself.
Tory leader Michael Howard last week added to the Prime Minister�s discomfort by criticising his "new doctrine" of not making public the private advice he is giving the Americans over the worsening situation in Iraq. Blair is planning a push to win international support for a new United Nations resolution recognising the new Iraqi government. But critics claim his campaign will be more credible at home and abroad if he is seen to be prepared to stand up to Bush over the growing international concerns about the direction Iraq is taking since Saddam was removed.
The spiral of violence continued yesterday when deputy interior minister General Abdel Jabar was injured and five people killed in a car bombing near the minister�s home in Baghdad. The danger posed to civilians and armed forces in Iraq was further laid bare last night by the revelation that the UK government is paying out millions to "mercenary" security companies to protect its staff stationed in the country.
Scotland on Sunday has discovered that a private security company headed by former Foreign Secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind is making millions from a contract to protect Foreign Office staff working in Iraq.
ArmorGroup, the biggest security firm working in Iraq, is one of two companies that have raked in a total of �15m between them for providing round-the-clock cover in the treacherous environment of post-war Iraq during the past year.
Rifkind, the Tory candidate for Kensington and Chelsea, sparked protests from political opponents last month when he took over the chairmanship of ArmorGroup, which has 700 employees in Iraq.
Straw has admitted ArmorGroup and Control Risks are being paid a combined total of �50,000 every day to protect bureaucrats stationed in Iraq, amid mounting concerns about the safety of civilians in the war-torn country.
The fee was described as a "minuscule amount" by one government official last night. But furious MPs condemned the outlay as "appalling value for money", and claimed the government should not be ploughing money into a controversial industry that is making huge profits as part of the reconstruction effort in Iraq.
More than a dozen firms, many employing former servicemen, have been registered to work in Iraq, protecting politicians, civil servants and staff at several of the companies that have won contracts to rebuild Iraq�s shattered infrastructure.
But the security bill is swallowing up a huge chunk of the $18bn set aside by the Americans for rebuilding the country.
"Some of the firms in Iraq provide very good protection, but I am very concerned that the government is paying so much money for it," said Labour MP Andrew Mackinlay.
"There are few ground rules for what these companies are allowed to do. I would like to think our government could provide this sort of protection from its own forces, particularly when so many of the people working for these security companies have left the forces."
Private security companies have an estimated 10,000 guards in Iraq. Their lucrative trade has provoked a series of complaints about the influence of heavily armed personnel who are not under the direct control of official forces.
President Bush will make a further bid to reassure the world of his Iraq policy tomorrow. During a keynote address in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, he will outline his strategy for steering Iraq to self-rule on June 30.
His preparations for the televised address were disrupted when he fell off his mountain bike during a 17-mile trek yesterday, suffering minor cuts to his face and body.
�2004 Scotsman.com
No comments:
Post a Comment