Genocide in Iraq

Despite the precipitous plunge in his popularity and growing criticism of his competency, character, and style, George W. Bush is not really that much different from other presidents with respect to his hegemonic ambitions or his proclivity to use force to achieve foreign policy objectives.  Continuing historical patterns, President Bush and all presidents since World War II have committed horrendous crimes against humanity in order to protect and advance American interests under the guise of liberating people from under the jackboot of brutal dictators or communist subversives, bringing democracy to totalitarian states, improving the lives of those who are suffering and eradicating terrorism.

The gaping discrepancy between the stated goals of American foreign policy and its praxis is best exemplified by the apogee of war crimes: genocide.  In its pursuit of these lofty goals, the United States has committed genocide in Iraq.  Intervention resulting in genocide at the very minimum proves that American government's professed motives for foreign policy decisions are altogether specious.

Rationalizations for the application of military force have been based on euphemistic doctrines which have no basis in American or international law as is the case with George W. Bush's doctrine of preemptive war.

Invading and occupying Iraq under the pretext of a preemptive war, a country already decimated by Dessert Storm, sanctions and no-fly-zones, represents the quintessential tragedy and hypocrisy of American foreign policy.  To verify that the American Government is guilty of genocide in Iraq, I will establish a set of criteria based on the United Nations Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and apply them to Iraq.

The UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide sets out a number of criteria to evaluate whether or not a war crime attains the magnitude of genocide.

According to the Convention:

    "Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, such as:

    a) Killing members of the group;
    b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm;
    c) Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or part;
    d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
    e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

Although the phrase "in whole or in part" sounds ambiguous, its ambit has been restricted by judgments of the International Criminal Court.  According to the Rapporteur for the Preparatory Commission of the International Criminal Court, "The accused aimed to destroy a large part of the group in a particular area."  The International Criminal Court for the former Yugoslavia concluded that "The killing of all members of a group within a small geographical area" was tantamount to genocide.  Notwithstanding the imprecision of these definitions of "part", the area in Bosnia referred to in the ruling sets a baseline for future cases.  The architect of the Convention, Raphael Lemkin, intended to define "in part" as a level of destruction sufficiently substantial to imperil the existence of the group.  Shedding even further light on this problem, the Convention itself considers attempted genocide to be punishable under the Convention implying that intent alone is sufficient to establish guilt.

"Intent" is another term in need of clarification.  Apart from direct evidence through orders, statements, or coordinated acts, intention can be shown if "Acts of destruction that are not the specific goal but are predictable outcomes or by-products of a policy, which may have been avoided by a change in that policy."

The Genocide Convention defines two basic levels of guilt: the direct commission of genocide and complicity to commit genocide.  Complicity in genocide must embody:

a)Intentional participation;
b)Knowledge of the genocidal intent of the perpetrators;
c)Organizing, planning, supplying arms, training intelligence, or direct military support.

One example of direct American genocide, Iraq, has suffered massive destruction to its infrastructure, the economy and human life, particularly since the imposition of American sanctions in 1990 and the bombing in 1991.  UN Resolution 661 mandated sanctions against Iraq originally to force Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait.  The resolution was worded in such a way as to grant the United States a veto over which products could be traded with Iraq.  The American government exploited that veto to severely punish the people of Iraq in the hope that they would overthrow Saddam Hussein themselves.

According to a 1993 UNICEF study, "What has become increasingly clear is that no significant movement toward food security can be achieved so long as the embargo remains in place."  Declassified documents divulge the fact that the Americans were aware of and responsible for a humanitarian crisis caused by the sanctions.  A Defense Intelligence Agency report on January 18, 1991 concludes that:

    Failing to secure supplies [for Iraq] will result in a shortage of pure drinking water for much of the population.  This could lead to increased incidences; if not epidemics of disease...Current public health problems are attributable to the reduction of normal preventative medicine, waste disposal, water purification and     distribution electricity, and the decreased ability to control disease outbreaks.

On January 15, 1991, B-52s were flying towards their targets in Iraq and cruise missiles were fired from ships in the Indian Ocean.  Iraqi defenses were incapable of offering any resistance.

Restricting the bombing to only military targets was not part of the U.S. war plan whereas targets included hospitals, electric utilities, schools, factories, water treatment plants, irrigation systems, food storage facilities and community health centres.  Over 200,000 people died, the majority of whom were civilians.

In 2003, George Bush Junior inflicted further atrocities on the devastated people of Iraq and on a country virtually bombed back into pre-industrial times by another so-called war.  As of today, Iraq has suffered a further one million casualties and four million refugees.

Whether or not the administrations of Bush Senior, Clinton, and Bush Junior intended to commit genocide in Iraq is irrelevant because the consequences of the bombings and sanctions could have been predicted by any reasonable person.  The actions of these administrations clearly resulted in mass killing, serious bodily and mental harm, and the infliction of conditions calculated to bring about Iraq's physical destruction in whole or in part.  Iraq is a clear-cut case of genocide.

The carnage resulting from this genocide clearly exposes the disparity between the professed principles of American foreign policy and its manifest practice.  This hypocrisy betrays the indifference of American leaders to basic democratic principles and to respect for both domestic and international law.

http://www.stateofdarkness.com

Display:


Re: Genocide in Iraq (2.00 / 1)

George Bush is a war criminal. I mean what more does he have to do? McCain would continue the legacy. Rec


by Politicalslave on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 01:02:54 PM EST

Re: Genocide in Iraq (none / 0)

George Bush and his whole crew are war criminals. I would like nothing more than to see the lot of them on trial in the Hague. However, keep in mind that there are several sides in this conflict. Al Queda is as guilty, if not more so, when it comes to inflicting harm on the Iraqi people.

Much of the damage done to the Iraqi people by the United States is nothing more than the natural consequence of starting an armed conflict and the side effects of fighting an insurgency. This is not deliberate genocide. That doesn't excuse anyone, though.

The biggest crime here was in starting the war in the first place. The second crime was in standing by while the country was looted shortly after the Iraqi army was disbanded. Add on the crimes at Abu Grahib, Guantanamo, air strikes that killed more civilians than opponents, the unavoidable civilian deaths caused by individual soldiers that take things to far, and all of the less overt causes of death, like not putting a decent infrastructure in place for food and electricity, inadequate health care, unexploded munitions, etc... and the crimes become uncountable.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 01:23:44 PM EST

Re: Genocide in Iraq (none / 0)

It might be wise to look up what the official language defines the term war criminal or genocide before we go about accusing our military and president of such acts.

I'm not defending his Iraq action but I'm defending America here that voted this man in place for 2 terms. By accusing him and conversely our military of such acts is naive

Genocide:

"the mental element, meaning the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such",


He was warmly received by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who called him "a leader that God has blessed us with at this time."
by roxfoxy on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 01:29:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Genocide in Iraq (2.00 / 1)

I said nothing about genocide. I did use the term 'war criminals' and I will stand by that. Anyone who authorizes the use of torture can be considered a war criminal. We need nothing more than that to make the claim.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 01:38:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Genocide in Iraq (2.00 / 1)

Here is something along the same lines.

"22 January 1991

Defense Intelligence Agency document, entitled "Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities," is published. It details how sanctions combined with destruction of potable water infrastructure can be used against the Iraqi people as a war measure, in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the Laws of Warfare.

Here is an excerpt:

   "Iraq depends on importing specialized equipment and some chemicals to purify its water supply, most of which is heavily mineralized and frequently brackish to saline... With no domestic sources of both water treatment replacement parts and some essential chemicals, Iraq will continue attempts to circumvent United Nations Sanctions to import these vital commodities. Failing to secure supplies will result in a shortage of pure drinking water for much of the population. This could lead to increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease... The quality of untreated water generally is poor, [and drinking it] could result in diarrhea... [Iraq's rivers] contain biological materials, pollutants, and are laden with bacteria. Unless the water is purified with chlorine, epidemics of such diseases as cholera, hepatitis, and typhoid could occur. [Chlorine] has been embargoed [by sanctions]... Recent reports indicate the chlorine supply is critically low... Food processing, electronic, and, particularly, pharmaceutical plants require extremely pure water that is free from biological contaminants... Iraq conceivably could truck water from the mountain reservoirs to urban areas. But the capability to gain significant quantities is extremely limited... The amount of pipe on hand and the lack of pumping stations would limit laying pipelines to these reservoirs. Moreover, without chlorine purification, the water still would contain biological pollutants. Some affluent Iraqis could obtain their own minimally adequate supply of good quality water from Northern Iraqi sources. If boiled, the water could be safely consumed. Poorer Iraqis and industries requiring large quantities of pure water would not be able to meet their needs... Precipitation occurs in Iraq during the winter and spring, but it falls primarily in the northern mountains... Sporadic rains, sometimes heavy, fall over the lower plains. But Iraq could not rely on rain to provide adequate pure water... Iraq could try convincing the United Nations or individual countries to exempt water treatment supplies from sanctions for humanitarian reasons... It probably also is attempting to purchase supplies by using some sympathetic countries as fronts. If such attempts fail, Iraqi alternatives are not adequate for their national requirements... Iraq will suffer increasing shortages of purified water because of the lack of required chemicals and desalination membranes. Incidences of disease, including possible epidemics, will become probable unless the population were careful to boil water... Iraq's overall water treatment capability will suffer a slow decline, rather than a precipitous halt... Although Iraq is already experiencing a loss of water treatment capability, it probably will take at least six months [to June 1991] before the system is fully degraded."2"

Whole article here..

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww 3/042004_goff_timeline.html


"harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy"
by nogo postal on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 02:07:15 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.