Weapons of Mass DISTRACTION overcome by lack of WMD
Peter Vos
out their Weapons of Mass DISTRACTION in the vain hope we will
overlook the fact there is no evidence to support their highly
publicized claims of WMD. They know that evidence is required to
legitimize their invasion as a legal act of self-defense. They also
know that legal justification for the invasion is critical to defend
them against the charge that the government of the United States
planned and waged a war of aggression.
Folks like Joe Scarborough on MSNBC says the WMD are not relevant. "We
toppled a dictator, weliberated Iraq, and our troops are coming home.
End of story." But how can that be when we just launched the largest
operation since the "end" of the war? He can rail at the "liberal
media" that is keeping this story alive, but it only demonstrates his
desperation when you realize William F. Buckley, Chris Matthews, and
Robert Novak get painted with that broad brush.
Thinking conservatives know that planning and waging a war of
aggression is a particularly serious violation of the law of war.
Colin Powell, unlike the CEOs of Bush & Co. has actually held military
command and knows according to "The Law of Land Warfare," (cf. US Army
Field Manual 27-10), planning and waging a war of aggression is
recognized as a war crime.
If that seems like just so many words, consider this sobering passage:
"The death penalty may be imposed for grave breaches of the law." The
fact is, people have been legally imprisoned and executed for planning
and waging wars of aggression.
This becomes increasingly relevant when you remember that President
Bush is the Commander in Chief. Let's not forget, we are talking
about a man who actually WORE the uniform that clearly identified him
as a member of the US armed forced during this conflict. As such he
is subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and FM 27-10
becomes *extremely* relevant.
Relevant portions of FM 27-10 are provided below for reference.
-------- Law of Land Warfare
(www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/27-10/toc.htm)
Purpose of FM 27-10:
The purpose of the Army Field Manual 27-10, "is to provide
authoritative guidance to military personnel on the customary and
treaty law applicable to the conduct of warfare on land and to
relationships between belligerents and neutral States."
Source of Law:
The sources for the law of war are defined as follows (Chapter 1,
Section I, para 4): "Lawmaking treaties may be compared with
legislative enactments in the
national law of the United States and the customary law of war with
the unwritten Anglo-American common law."
Binding upon Individuals:
The manual notes (Chapter 1, Sec I, para. 3b) "The law of war is
binding not only upon States as such but also upon individuals and, in
particular, the members of their armed forces."
Binding on Civilians:
The manual notes (Chapter 1, Sec I, para. 7b) "Under the Constitution
of the United States, treaties constitute part of the "supreme Law of
the Land" (art. VI, clause 2). In consequence, treaties relating to
the law of war have a force equal to that of laws enacted by the
Congress. Their provisions must be observed by both military and
civilian personnel with the same strict regard for both the letter and
spirit of the law which is required with respect to the Constitution
and statutes enacted in pursuance thereof.
Applicability:
The manual also notes (Chapter 2, Sec I, paragraph 23) "The Charter of
the United Nations makes illegal the threat or use of force contrary
to the purpose of the United Nations ... a State which resorts to war
in violation of the Charter will not render its acts of aggression or
breach of the peace any the less unlawful by formally declaring war."
War Crimes Defined:
This term is explicitly defined (Chapter 8, Section II, para 499) as
follows: "The term "war crime" is the technical expression for a
violation of the law of war by any person or persons, military or
civilian. Every violation of the law of war is a war crime."
International crimes:
Specific crimes under international law are covered in detail(e.g.,
Chapter 8, Section II, paragraph 498). The manual states "Any person,
whether a member of the armed forces or a civilian, who commits an act
which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible
therefore and liable to punishment. Such offenses in connection with
war comprise:
a. Crimes against peace.
b. Crimes against humanity.
c. War crimes.
Nuremberg Principles:
The United States is a signatory to the Nuremberg Principles. In
1995, the United States sponsored a General Assembly resolution that
voted unanimously to reaffirm the Nuremberg principles. The legal
definition regarding the three crimes listed above, like many of the
other rules stipulated in this manual are derived from the Nuremberg
Principles. (cf. http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/meiklejohn/meik-peacelaw/meik-peacelaw-10.html).
Crimes against peace:
Nuremberg Principle IV defines specific crimes punishable as crimes
under international law and defines "Crimes against peace" as follows:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of war of aggression
or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or
assurances; (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the
accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
Unacceptable Defenses:
The manual is very clear in the section "Defenses Not Available"
(Chapter 8, Section IV) that one cannot simply claim they were
"following orders." The manual actually reserves a separate paragraph
for Government Officials (Chapter 8, Section IV, para 510) which
states "The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes
a war crime acted as the head of a State or as a responsible
government official does not relieve him from responsibility for his
act."
Punishment:
Offenses under the Law of Land Warfare are treated seriously. The
manual clearly states (Chapter 8, Section III, para. 508) "The
punishment imposed for a violation of the law of war must be
proportionate to the gravity of the offense. The death penalty may be
imposed for grave breaches of the law. Corporal punishment is
excluded. Punishments should be deterrent, and in imposing a sentence
of imprisonment it is not necessary to take into consideration the end
of the war, which does not of itself limit the imprisonment to be
imposed."
----
"Arguments of convenience lack integrity and inevitably trip you up."
- Donald Rumsfeld in "Rumsfeld's Rules", copyright 1980