Bush Administration guilty of wide range of war crimes in Iraq: Jury of Conscience demands accountability
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE http://www.worldtribunal-nyc.org
May 12, 2004 Contact: Rania Jawad at rjawad7@yahoo.com or 646 230 1780
Bush Administration guilty of wide range of war crimes in Iraq: Jury of Conscience demands accountability
NEW YORK: An international jury of conscience, including Eve Ensler, Obie-award winning author of “The Vagina Monologues,” issued a statement today finding U.S. civilian leaders to be “responsible and accountable for grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions” in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion.
The thirteen-member jury considered evidence on a range of violations including the continued arbitrary detention and torture of Iraqi civilians, the use of cluster munitions in heavily populated civilian areas, the extrajudicial killings of Iraqi civilians, and the destruction of vital services.
The jurors found that “instead of caring for Iraqi people, the US authorities have killed, starved, maimed and tortured thousands of Iraqi people, destroying their infrastructure, including their water and health facilities. … This was done by the US government. The people of the US are responsible and must hold their government accountable.”
As outrage over the torture of Iraqi prisoners by the U.S. military continues to grow both domestically and internationally, the evidence at the tribunal highlighted the systematic brutality of the U.S. invasion and military occupation for the people of Iraq.
Juror Eve Ensler commented on the impact of Saturday’s tribunal: “The images of bombs falling like grapes from the sky and children playing in barrels of uranium, the language of not calling it torture, and the failure to provide security, water, and health and to preserve the ancient cultural property of Iraq shatters my heart: I hold a human shame, a sorrow that is so vast and so deep there is a physical aching in all of me.”
The Jury’s statement emphasizes that “the responsibility for defining the future of their country has always rested with the people of Iraq and not with any outside power, or external military force, let alone one that previously encouraged and collaborated with Saddam Hussein in some of his most violent escapades.”
Columbia University Professor Hamid Dabashi, Chairman of the Jury, noted, “The fire of the pain we witness our fellow humans endure half-way around the globe tests our mettle. But we will win – we, the ordinary people, have always won.” Fellow juror Eve Ensler concurred: “What gives me hope is the will of the people. We will win this struggle, there is no alternative.”
Global anti-war activists created the World Tribunal on Iraq in 2003 to hold the Bush administration and its allies accountable for their actions, to establish facts about what happened in Washington and Iraq, and to inform the public of those facts. Precedents for this process include the 1967 Russell Tribunal to investigate crimes by the U.S. and allies in Vietnam, and the International War Crimes Tribunal against weapons of mass destruction by the German Green Party in Nuremberg in 1983. Hearings are being held in sixteen cities across the world and will culminate in the final session in Istanbul, Turkey on the second anniversary of the invasion, March 20, 2005.
Witnesses, advocates and representatives of the WTI - New York Session are available for interviews. Advocate presentations are available online at http://www.worldtribunal-nyc.org
New York Session of the World Tribunal on Iraq
www.worldtribunal-nyc.org
Final Statement of the Jury of Conscience
Rabab Abdulhadi, Sinan Antoon, Dennis Brutus, Hamid Dabashi, Bhairavi Desai,
Eve Ensler, Jenny Green, Lisa Hajjar, Motarilavoa Hilda Lini, Elias Khoury,
Ibrahim Ramey, Kiyoko McCrae, Robert van Lierop
May 8, 2004
Preamble
The war against Iraq has posed one of the most challenging, frustrating and
explosive international crises in recent memory.
The World Tribunal on Iraq sitting in session at Cooper Union in New York
City on May 8th 2004 and having heard the testimony and evidence presented
and having carefully weighed that evidence has reached a series of
conclusions.
>From its conception to its prosecution and the current occupation, fact, law
and logic have been turned on their heads and fabricated to rationalize and
justify what can only be considered, by all international standards, an
unjust war of aggression.
There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein waged unjust wars of
aggression itself against Iran, Kuwait and those Iraqis who did not
acquiesce in the regime's reign of terror and corruption. That, however,
does not for one minute justify the violence, destruction and degradation
visited upon the people of Iraq from the 20th of March 2003 and continuing
today.
The responsibility for defining the future of their country has always
rested with the people of Iraq and not with any outside power, or external
military force, let alone one that previously encouraged and collaborated
with Saddam Hussein in some of his most violent escapades.
International law has always recognized a legitimate right to resist foreign
occupation. The people of Iraq cannot be considered an exception to this
well-established principle of customary international law.
War is a fundamental collapse of human reason and failure of imagination,
and should always be an absolute last resort undertaken only in strict
adherence with the charter of the United Nations. The current war and
occupation of Iraq were undertaken in disregard of the most fundamental
principles of international law and with obvious contempt for truth,
posterity, and the morality which should guide all human actions. The result
has been the occupation and colonization of Iraq and the destruction of its
economy and increased violence and insecurity for the overwhelming majority
of the Iraqi population. The world cannot sit by passively and watch the
continued deterioration of the future of our planet.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) provides an opportunity for the
expansion and enhancement of the international rule of law. Unfortunately,
the current administration in Washington has not only chosen to separate
itself from the evolving international consensus on respect for the rule of
law, but has also chosen to undermine the rule of law through its actions
against the International Criminal Court and other legal regimes. It must be
noted that the majority of professional legal associations in the United
States have expressed support for the ICC even while the administration
works against it.
Case One
Question posed to the jury: Was this an illegal war?
The laws governing the initiation of hostilities derive from the UN charter.
There are only two situations in which a country can legally go to war:
1. Self defense
2. With the approval of UN Security Council, which is vested with
responsibility to make determinations about the ?common interest? for global
peace and security.
Our finding based on the evidence presented to this tribunal is: the US
government has committed a crime of aggression for the following reasons:
1. There was no legitimate self-defense issue at stake:
a. There was a long period of a pre-planning and aspirations for war on Iraq.
b. The fabrication and falsification was driven by ideological agenda.
c. Fear mongering to gain US public support included false linkages of Iraq
with Al-Qai?da and the September 11th attacks.
2. There was no imminent threat at stake:
a. There were many pleas for continued inspections
b. There were many expert statements from inspectors that there were no
weapons of mass destruction.
c. The prevalence of the preventive war doctrine dominated the preparatory
stages of this war.
3. This war has destabilized Iraq, the region and the world.
a. The UN Security Council did not approve military action.
b. There was unprecedented mass global opposition to this war.
Case Two
In war, has force been used legally?
Have war crimes been committed?
Who is legally accountable for violations of International Humanitarian Law
(IHL)?
Our findings:
Numerous violations of IHL have been committed by the US and coalition
forces. Civilian leaders are responsible and accountable for grave breaches
of the Geneva Conventions and their Protocol I.
1. The US is a party to the Geneva Conventions, which are thus binding on
the US .
2. Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions constitutes customary international
law and therefore is universally binding.
3. Grave breaches require prosecution.
The evidence on which our conclusions are based:
1. The targeting of Iraqi leaders in ?decapitation? strikes, violating the
principles of necessity, proportionality and military values.
2. The use of incendiary weapons and cluster munitions constitute war crimes
as these forms of weaponry are inherently indiscriminate and cause
unnecessary suffering. Furthermore, their use in heavily populated civilian
areas is a violation of civilian immunity.
3. The use of extrajudicial killings at "checkpoints" violates the
principles of civilian immunity, distinction, and proportionality.
The US military and the US administration are responsible for these
violations and liable under the Geneva Convention for prosecution. The US
has violated International Humanitarian Law.
Case Three
Concerning the matter of Iraq under the occupation, the jury addressed a
number of questions: the first finding was that the occupation itself was
and continues to be illegal.
Under international law countries have the right to self-determination.
Under international law the United States as occupying power has obligations
to adhere to the Geneva Conventions, to which both the United States and
Iraq are parties, and other treaties to which Iraq is a party.
The U.S. has violated all of these requirements. The evidence presented
proves that there has been continuing public insecurity including the lack
of safety, the continued arbitrary detention and torture, unlawful attacks,
the destruction of vital services and economic colonization.
Conclusion
In the name of a preventive strike on Iraq, the US government fabricated a
web of lies. We were told that the war on Iraq was waged because there were
weapons of mass destruction, and that there were linkages between Saddam
Hussein and Al-Qua'ida. We were told that the US authorities were deeply
concerned for Iraqi people and their suffering under Saddam Hussein and they
longed for their freedom and democracy. If all this were true, then why have
no weapons of mass destruction been found? Why instead of finding
Al-Qua'ida, have they invited Al-Qua'ida? Instead of caring for Iraqi
people, they have killed, starved, maimed, tortured thousands of Iraqi
people, destroying their infrastructure, including their water and health
facilities. In the name of democracy they have created a corporate tyranny
which has essentially stolen Iraq out from under the Iraqi people. They have
committed war crimes against Iraqi people in prisons and have made freedom
of movement and speech almost impossible. This was done by the US
government. The people of the US are responsible and must hold their
government accountable.
We the jury of conscience therefore affirm the following conclusions and
recommendations:
1. That the US and its coalition partners immediately cease all violations
of the civil, political and human rights of the people of Iraq;
2. That the military occupation of Iraq be immediately ended;
3. That all parties guilty of war crimes against the Iraqi people be brought
to justice under international law;
4. That reparations be paid by all responsible parties to the people of Iraq
for the damages caused by both the war and the occupation;
5. That we work to strengthen the mobilization of the global antiwar movement;
6. That the occupation of Palestine, Afghanistan and all other colonized
areas is illegal and should be brought to an end immediately.
http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?id=4856
