us plans its own war crimes tribunal for iraqis
brian | 10.04.2003 08:42
what a joke! break international law in invading a country, then try the defeated...this looks more like a texas lynch mob. While there, us should try its own officials who aided saddam once upon a time
Washington intends to bypass the United Nations and try Iraqi leaders for alleged war crimes under U.S. law, State Department and Pentagon officials said yesterday, and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and his two sons could be among those prosecuted if they are taken alive.
War-crimes trials could be handled by special U.S. military commissions, military courts, martial or civilian federal criminal courts, said W. Hays Parks, a senior Pentagon legal adviser.
Punishment could include the death penalty, said Pierre-Richard Prosper, the U.S. ambassador for war crimes. The duo spoke at a Pentagon press briefing.
The plan to prosecute Iraqi leaders under U.S. law ignores recent precedent and the advice of many international legal scholars.
David Scheffer, who was ambassador for war crimes in the previous U.S. administration, has argued for a special UN tribunal to try Iraqis for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The UN Security Council created such tribunals to deal with war crimes in the former Yugoslavia and genocide in Rwanda.
Mr. Scheffer, Richard Dicker of Human Rights Watch and other experts say an international tribunal is needed to give the proceedings credibility.
Putting Iraqi leaders before a U.S. court will be seen as "victor's justice [that] could ignite a firestorm in the Arab street," Mr. Scheffer wrote in a recent article for The Washington Post.
Mr. Dicker, director of the international-justice program at Human Rights Watch, said the United States should support a tribunal composed of international jurists, or a "mixed" tribunal composed of local and international legal experts.
Many White House officials appear reluctant to involve UN bodies in the postwar affairs of Iraq after unsuccessful attempts to win Security Council backing for the conflict.
The UN's new permanent International Criminal Court would have jurisdiction for war crimes committed after July 1, except that the United States is not a party to the treaty establishing the court.
U.S. President George W. Bush withdrew support for the treaty shortly after he came to office.
"The current abuses, the crimes particularly against U.S. personnel, we believe we have the sovereign ability and right to prosecute these cases," Mr. Prosper said. "We are of the view that an international tribunal for the current abuses is not necessary."
Mr. Parks alleges Iraq has committed war crimes in violation of the Geneva Conventions.
They include broadcasts on Iraqi TV of videotapes of dead coalition soldiers and of the interrogations of five U.S. prisoners of war, he said.
The tapes are evidence of "fundamental violations of the Geneva Convention obligations" to respect the bodies of the dead and treat captured combatants with dignity.
In addition, Iraqi forces committed acts of "perfidy" by appearing in civilian clothing and carrying white flags of surrender only to draw coalition forces into ambushes, Mr. Parks said.
Britain could also prosecute Iraqis alleged to have violated the Geneva Convention rights of its soldiers, Mr. Prosper said.
Iraqi leaders could be prosecuted for similar rights violations during the 1991 Persian Gulf war, he added.
A new postwar Iraqi judiciary could prosecute leading figures in Saddam Hussein's regime for previous crimes, he said.
Iraqi exile groups are being consulted, the officials said.
U.S. officials drew up a list of about a dozen senior Iraqi officials for possible prosecution even before the current war began. They include Mr. Hussein's two sons, Uday, the commander of fedayeen paramilitary forces, and Qusay, head of the Republican Guard.
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030408.ucour0408/BNStory/International
War-crimes trials could be handled by special U.S. military commissions, military courts, martial or civilian federal criminal courts, said W. Hays Parks, a senior Pentagon legal adviser.
Punishment could include the death penalty, said Pierre-Richard Prosper, the U.S. ambassador for war crimes. The duo spoke at a Pentagon press briefing.
The plan to prosecute Iraqi leaders under U.S. law ignores recent precedent and the advice of many international legal scholars.
David Scheffer, who was ambassador for war crimes in the previous U.S. administration, has argued for a special UN tribunal to try Iraqis for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The UN Security Council created such tribunals to deal with war crimes in the former Yugoslavia and genocide in Rwanda.
Mr. Scheffer, Richard Dicker of Human Rights Watch and other experts say an international tribunal is needed to give the proceedings credibility.
Putting Iraqi leaders before a U.S. court will be seen as "victor's justice [that] could ignite a firestorm in the Arab street," Mr. Scheffer wrote in a recent article for The Washington Post.
Mr. Dicker, director of the international-justice program at Human Rights Watch, said the United States should support a tribunal composed of international jurists, or a "mixed" tribunal composed of local and international legal experts.
Many White House officials appear reluctant to involve UN bodies in the postwar affairs of Iraq after unsuccessful attempts to win Security Council backing for the conflict.
The UN's new permanent International Criminal Court would have jurisdiction for war crimes committed after July 1, except that the United States is not a party to the treaty establishing the court.
U.S. President George W. Bush withdrew support for the treaty shortly after he came to office.
"The current abuses, the crimes particularly against U.S. personnel, we believe we have the sovereign ability and right to prosecute these cases," Mr. Prosper said. "We are of the view that an international tribunal for the current abuses is not necessary."
Mr. Parks alleges Iraq has committed war crimes in violation of the Geneva Conventions.
They include broadcasts on Iraqi TV of videotapes of dead coalition soldiers and of the interrogations of five U.S. prisoners of war, he said.
The tapes are evidence of "fundamental violations of the Geneva Convention obligations" to respect the bodies of the dead and treat captured combatants with dignity.
In addition, Iraqi forces committed acts of "perfidy" by appearing in civilian clothing and carrying white flags of surrender only to draw coalition forces into ambushes, Mr. Parks said.
Britain could also prosecute Iraqis alleged to have violated the Geneva Convention rights of its soldiers, Mr. Prosper said.
Iraqi leaders could be prosecuted for similar rights violations during the 1991 Persian Gulf war, he added.
A new postwar Iraqi judiciary could prosecute leading figures in Saddam Hussein's regime for previous crimes, he said.
Iraqi exile groups are being consulted, the officials said.
U.S. officials drew up a list of about a dozen senior Iraqi officials for possible prosecution even before the current war began. They include Mr. Hussein's two sons, Uday, the commander of fedayeen paramilitary forces, and Qusay, head of the Republican Guard.
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030408.ucour0408/BNStory/International
brian
Comments
Hide the following 4 comments
Yeah folks!!!!!!!
10.04.2003 09:04
It's circus time again!!!!!!
Kangaroo Kourts Inc
isn't this a warcrime
10.04.2003 10:23
'OH WHAT A LOVELY WAR
=
'The enormous fuel-air weapons - nicknamed Big Blue - were
dropped from a pair of adapted C130 Hercules cargo planes.
They fell under stabilising parachutes and detonated only 3ft above the ground. Witnesses saw two massive mushroom clouds billowing as blazing, explosive slurry was blasted over the battlefield, incinerating everything in a 600-yard radius. Apache helicopters then strafed groups of shocked Iraqi troops with rotary cannon fire.'
q-man
What do they think they are doing?
10.04.2003 12:18
The arrogance and stupidity leaves me speechless.
When the US invaded Panama and abducted the head of state, Noriega, they threw him in a prison in Florida and everyone forgot about him. If they had put him on trial for narco-trafficing, he would have claimed the defence that the CIA made him do it.
There is no way that Saddam can be tried for use of chemical weapons in 1988 without him making the defence that America and, in particular, Rumsfeld said he could do it.
They cannot afford to have a trial of any kind. Not even a kangaroo court could cover this up. They can't be so stupid, can they?
The prisoners in Cuba aren't put on trial because, apparently, if we heard their words in public they would speak code phrases which would kick off terrorist attacks throughout the world. Was that the story?
goatchurch
newsnight
10.04.2003 12:44
on being asked by jeremy paxman whether iraqi pows would be likely to be exported to camp x ray dr john reid dodged the question a bit, repeating that all pows would be treated under the geneva convention (thus suggesting that they wont be exported to camp x ray) but that its unlikely pows who were soldiers who had taken off their uniforms could be called pows, and thus are not going to be protected by geneva and thus liable to camp x ray detention
says it all really
poler