November 14, 2004
ONLY ONE SOVEREIGN (via Pat H):
Rights Lawyers See Possibility of a War Crime (MICHAEL JANOFSKY, 11/13/04, NY Times)
Human rights experts said Friday that American soldiers might have committed a war crime on Thursday when they sent fleeing Iraqi civilians back into Falluja.Citing several articles of the Geneva Conventions, the experts said recognized laws of war require military forces to protect civilians as refugees and forbid returning them to a combat zone.
"This is highly problematical conduct in terms of exposing people to grave danger by returning them to an area where fighting is going on," said Jordan Paust, a law professor at the University of Houston and a former Army prosecutor.
James Ross, senior legal adviser to Human Rights Watch, said, "If that's what happened, it would be a war crime."
A stream of refugees, about 300 men, women and children, were detained by American soldiers as they left southern Falluja by car and on foot. The women and children were allowed to proceed. The men were tested for any residues left by the handling of explosives. All tested negative, but they were sent back.
A Defense Department spokesman, Lt. Cmdr. Joe Carpenter, defended the actions of American troops in Iraq, saying: "Our forces over there are not haphazardly operating indiscriminately, targeting individuals or civilians. The rules of engagement are researched and vetted, and our forces closely follow them."
Because the United States has refused to take part in the International Criminal Court, it is unclear whether American troops could be held accountable.
Which is why it was imperative that we not submit to the ICC. Bad enough our own courts are meddling in the war, never mind the transnationalists. Posted by Orrin Judd at November 14, 2004 9:21 AM
Given liberals' love of taking unpopular measures into the court system, I'm sure we'll be seeking some sort of effort to try Bush in absentia for war crimes during the upcoming year in some European court (and of course, the action will be treated as a serious effort in certain sections of the media).
Posted by: John at November 14, 2004 9:51 AMSpain's Balthazar Garzon is undoubtedly chomping at the bit as we speak.
Posted by: Bart at November 14, 2004 10:31 AMYou drew it to our attention. We'll look into it. If there is something in it, we'll hold ourselves accountable, thank you very much.
Posted by: Mikey at November 14, 2004 10:54 AMI have nowhere nearly enough facts to make a judgement of this. Part of the problem is that all the Rags fighting after their perfidious feigned surrender are war criminals, hiding behind civilians and without uniforms or distinctive badges. Also, it is a question of fact whether sending civilians back into a secured portion of a city in which fighting is going on in another part is unreasonably endangering them.
Practically speaking, those who have not committed the war crime need not concern themselves with questiions such as these.
Posted by: Lou Gots at November 14, 2004 11:05 AMWe should pass a constitutional amendment banning the ACLU.
Posted by: Vince at November 14, 2004 11:55 AMThe anti-war left wants to make conducting a war a war crime. Just an example, they argue that the death of any civilian is, ipso facto, a war crim.
Posted by: David Cohen at November 14, 2004 1:58 PMThat's because the Left always tries to criminalize anything they don't support, or any behavior which would tend to support their opponents. At the same time they throw one of their tantrums if long existing laws are enforced when it might harm or inconvienence one of their constituent groups. For them, laws and the ability to define the laws are simply one more way to exercise absolute power.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at November 14, 2004 2:25 PMThese lefty imbeciles need to be crushed right now. I think that we should start hanging any terrorists after a "full interrogation," put them on gallows outside the nearest mosque. time to quit playing with kid gloves.
Posted by: John Cunningham at November 14, 2004 10:20 PM