Author
|
Topic: Rogue Nations Disrespect the Geneva Conventions (Read 831 times) |
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
 
|
 |
Rogue Nations Disrespect the Geneva Conventions
« on: 2009-08-28 01:58:23 » |
 |
[ Hermit : Art. 22 of the 1st Convention is the most significant clause apparently to have been breeched in this instance ]
US Copter Opens Fire on Afghan Medical Clinic
Injured Taliban 'Sought Treatment,' Leading to Attack
Source: Antiwar.com
Authors: Jason Ditz
Dated: 2009-08-27
| Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. Geneva
Source: ICRC.org
Dated: 1949-08-12
Refer Also: Full Geneva Conventions | US and Afghan forces, backed by a US Apache helicopter attacked a medical clinic in the Paktika Province of Afghanistan yesterday after receiving reports that a wounded Taliban commander had "sought treatment" at the facility.
The attack sparked a gunbattle which according to provincial officials left at least 12 militants and two policemen killed. The US denied that anyone had died in the attack but claimed to have injured their target, though since he was already injured in the first place it’s probably hard to be sure about that.
The US defended the attack on the clinic, insisting that it had ensured the building was cleared of civilians before the helicopter began firing and that since the clinic was occupied by Taliban it lost "its protected status" [ Hermit : Infra ] as a civilian location.
The Pakitika Province borders Pakistan’s Waziristan Agencies, and is no stranger to major clashes. Attacking a medical clinic, however, particularly when health care is in such short supply in rural Afghanistan, is likely to fuel resentment among locals. Likewise, the attack on a relatively minor Taliban commander when he was already injured and seeking medical treatment is probably going to raise further suspicions as the Afghan government continues to talk about reconciliation.
| The undersigned Plenipotentiaries of the Governments represented at the Diplomatic Conference held at Geneva from April 21 to August 12, 1949, for the purpose of revising the Geneva Convention for the Relief of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field of July 27, 1929, have agreed as follows:
Chapter I. General Provisions
Art 1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.
Art. 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.
Art. 4. Neutral Powers shall apply by analogy the provisions of the present Convention to the wounded and sick, and to members of the medical personnel and to chaplains of the armed forces of the Parties to the conflict, received or interned in their territory, as well as to dead persons found.
Art. 5. For the protected persons who have fallen into the hands of the enemy, the present Convention shall apply until their final repatriation.
Art. 6. In addition to the agreements expressly provided for in Articles 10, 15, 23, 28, 31, 36, 37 and 52, the High Contracting Parties may conclude other special agreements for all matters concerning which they may deem it suitable to make separate provision. No special agreement shall adversely affect the situation of the wounded and sick, of members of the medical personnel or of chaplains, as defined by the present Convention, nor restrict the rights which it confers upon them.
Wounded and sick, as well as medical personnel and chaplains, shall continue to have the benefit of such agreements as long as the Convention is applicable to them, except where express provisions to the contrary are contained in the aforesaid or in subsequent agreements, or where more favourable measures have been taken j with regard to them by one or other of the Parties to the conflict.
Art. 7. Wounded and sick, as well as members of the medical personnel and chaplains, may in no circumstances renounce in part or in entirety the rights secured to them by the present Convention, and by the special agreements referred to in the foregoing Article, if such there be.
Art. 8. The present Convention shall be applied with the cooperation and under the scrutiny of the Protecting Powers whose duty it is to safeguard the interests of the Parties to the conflict. For this purpose, the Protecting Powers may appoint, apart from their diplomatic or consular staff, delegates from amongst their own nationals or the nationals of other neutral Powers. The said delegates shall be subject to the approval of the Power with which they are to carry out their duties.
The Parties to the conflict shall facilitate to the greatest extent possible, the task of the representatives or delegates of the Protecting Powers.
The representatives or delegates of the Protecting Powers shall not in any case exceed their mission under the present Convention. They shall, in particular, take account of the imperative necessities of security of the State wherein they carry out their duties. Their activities shall only be restricted as an exceptional and temporary measure when this is rendered necessary by imperative military necessities.
Art. 9. The provisions of the present Convention constitute no obstacle to the humanitarian activities which the International Committee of the Red Cross or any other impartial humanitarian organization may, subject to the consent of the Parties to the conflict concerned, undertake for the protection of wounded and sick, medical personnel and chaplains, and for their relief.
Art. 10. The High Contracting Parties may at any time agree to entrust to an organization which offers all guarantees of impartiality and efficacy the duties incumbent on the Protecting Powers by virtue of the present Convention.
When wounded and sick, or medical personnel and chaplains do not benefit or cease to benefit, no matter for what reason, by the activities of a Protecting Power or of an organization provided for in the first paragraph above, the Detaining Power shall request a neutral State, or such an organization, to undertake the functions performed under the present Convention by a Protecting Power designated by the Parties to a conflict.
If protection cannot be arranged accordingly, the Detaining Power shall request or shall accept, subject to the provisions of this Article, the offer of the services of a humanitarian organization, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, to assume the humanitarian functions performed by Protecting Powers under the present Convention.
Any neutral Power, or any organization invited by the Power concerned or offering itself for these purposes, shall be required to act with a sense of responsibility towards the Party to the conflict on which persons protected by the present Convention depend, and shall be required to furnish sufficient assurances that it is in a position to undertake the appropriate functions and to discharge them impartially.
No derogation from the preceding provisions shall be made by special agreements between Powers one of which is restricted, even temporarily, in its freedom to negotiate with the other Power or its allies by reason of military events, more particularly where the whole, or a substantial part, of the territory of the said Power is occupied.
Whenever, in the present Convention, mention is made of a Protecting Power, such mention also applies to substitute organizations in the sense of the present Article.
Art. 11. In cases where they deem it advisable in the interest of protected persons, particularly in cases of disagreement between the Parties to the conflict as to the application or interpretation of the provisions of the present Convention, the Protecting Powers shall lend their good offices with a view to settling the disagreement.
For this purpose, each of the Protecting Powers may, either at the invitation of one Party or on its own initiative, propose to the Parties to the conflict a meeting of their representatives, in particular of the authorities responsible for the wounded and sick, members of medical personnel and chaplains, possibly on neutral territory suitably chosen. The Parties to the conflict shall be bound to give effect to the proposals made to them for this purpose. The Protecting Powers may, if necessary, propose for approval by the Parties to the conflict, a person belonging to a neutral Power or delegated by the International Committee of the Red Cross, who shall be invited to take part in such a meeting
Chapter II. Wounded and Sick
Art. 12. Members of the armed forces and other persons mentioned in the following Article, who are wounded or sick, shall be respected and protected in all circumstances.
They shall be treated humanely and cared for by the Party to the conflict in whose power they may be, without any adverse distinction founded on sex, race, nationality, religion, political opinions, or any other similar criteria. Any attempts upon their lives, or violence to their persons, shall be strictly prohibited; in particular, they shall not be murdered or exterminated, subjected to torture or to biological experiments; they shall not wilfully be left without medical assistance and care, nor shall conditions exposing them to contagion or infection be created.
Only urgent medical reasons will authorize priority in the order of treatment to be administered.
Women shall be treated with all consideration due to their sex. The Party to the conflict which is compelled to abandon wounded or sick to the enemy shall, as far as military considerations permit, leave with them a part of its medical personnel and material to assist in their care.
Art. 13. The present Convention shall apply to the wounded and sick belonging to the following categories:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a Government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civil members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany.
(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions in international law.
(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
Art. 14. Subject to the provisions of Article 12, the wounded and sick of a belligerent who fall into enemy hands shall be prisoners of war, and the provisions of international law concerning prisoners of war shall apply to them.
Art. 15. At all times, and particularly after an engagement, Parties to the conflict shall, without delay, take all possible measures to search for and collect the wounded and sick, to protect them against pillage and ill-treatment, to ensure their adequate care, and to search for the dead and prevent their being despoiled.
Whenever circumstances permit, an armistice or a suspension of fire shall be arranged, or local arrangements made, to permit the removal, exchange and transport of the wounded left on the battlefield.
Likewise, local arrangements may be concluded between Parties to the conflict for the removal or exchange of wounded and sick from a besieged or encircled area, and for the passage of medical and religious personnel and equipment on their way to that area.
<snip - section relating to the treatment of the dead - /snip>
Art. 18. The military authorities may appeal to the charity of the inhabitants voluntarily to collect and care for, under their direction, the wounded and sick, granting persons who have responded to this appeal the necessary protection and facilities. Should the adverse Party take or retake control of the area, he shall likewise grant these persons the same protection and the same facilities.
The military authorities shall permit the inhabitants and relief societies, even in invaded or occupied areas, spontaneously to collect and care for wounded or sick of whatever nationality. The civilian population shall respect these wounded and sick, and in particular abstain from offering them violence.
No one may ever be molested or convicted for having nursed the wounded or sick.
The provisions of the present Article do not relieve the occupying Power of its obligation to give both physical and moral care to the wounded and sick.
Chapter III. Medical Units and Establishments
Art. 19. Fixed establishments and mobile medical units of the Medical Service may in no circumstances be attacked, but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict. Should they fall into the hands of the adverse Party, their personnel shall be free to pursue their duties, as long as the capturing Power has not itself ensured the necessary care of the wounded and sick found in such establishments and units.
The responsible authorities shall ensure that the said medical establishments and units are, as far as possible, situated in such a manner that attacks against military objectives cannot imperil their safety.
Art. 20. Hospital ships entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of 12 August 1949, shall not be attacked from the land.
Art. 21. The protection to which fixed establishments and mobile medical units of the Medical Service are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after a due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit, and after such warning has remained unheeded. [ Hermit : Important to note that according to American sources (infra) the clinic had "fall[en] into the hands of the Adverse Party" (Art 19 Supra) and that the US then approached and attacked the clinic, apparently breaching this article. ]
Art. 22. The following conditions shall not be considered as depriving a medical unit or establishment of the protection guaranteed by Article 19:
(1) That the personnel of the unit or establishment are armed, and that they use the arms in their own defence, or in that of the wounded and sick in their charge.
(2) That in the absence of armed orderlies, the unit or establishment is protected by a picket or by sentries or by an escort.
(3) That small arms and ammunition taken from the wounded and sick and not yet handed to the proper service, are found in the unit or establishment.
(4) That personnel and material of the veterinary service are found in the unit or establishment, without forming an integral part thereof.
(5) That the humanitarian activities of medical units and establishments or of their personnel extend to the care of civilian wounded or sick. [ Hermit : Taking Art. 21 (supra) into account, this Art, clause (1) invalidates the American claim (infra) that ' "Once the troops were fired on from the clinic, it loses its protected status” as a civilian location where international forces may not fire' as this clause specifically precludes that claim. ]
Art. 23. In time of peace, the High Contracting Parties and, after the outbreak of hostilities, the Parties thereto, may establish in their own territory and, if the need arises, in occupied areas, hospital zones and localities so organized as to protect the wounded and sick from the effects of war, as well as the personnel entrusted with the organization and administration of these zones and localities and with the care of the persons therein assembled.
Upon the outbreak and during the course of hostilities, the Parties concerned may conclude agreements on mutual recognition of the hospital zones and localities they have created. They may for this purpose implement the provisions of the Draft Agreement annexed to the present Convention, with such amendments as they may consider necessary.
The Protecting Powers and the International Committee of the Red Cross are invited to lend their good offices in order to facilitate the institution and recognition of these hospital zones and localities. |
Afghan Taliban Commander Is Captured in Raid
Source: NY Times
Authors: Abdul Waheed Wafa (reporter, Kabul), Sharon Otterman (New York)
Dated: 2009-08-27
Afghan security forces raided a medical clinic in eastern Afghanistan late Wednesday, capturing a Taliban commander who had been wounded in attacks during last week’s presidential election, Afghan officials said Thursday.
During the operation, which took place in the Sar Hawza district of Paktika Province, Afghan forces came under fire and called for assistance from American air and ground forces, said Lt. Cmdr. Christine Sidenstricker, a NATO spokeswoman. After the building was cleared of civilians, she said, an American Apache helicopter fired on the clinic, ending the battle.
“Once the troops were fired on from the clinic, it loses its protected status” as a civilian location where international forces may not fire, she said. “In addition, we made sure the building was cleared of civilians, and there were no civilian deaths.”
Afghan officials said that one civilian, the watchman for the building, was wounded. It was impossible to immediately confirm the Afghan and American reports.
One American soldier was killed in the operation, NATO said.
Another American soldier was killed in an attack in southern Afghanistan on Thursday, bringing the total number of Americans killed in Afghanistan in August to 45, according to icasualties.org, an independent Web site that tracks casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. The toll is as high as the figure reported in July, which had been the deadliest month for American troops in Afghanistan.
In addition to the Taliban commander, identified as Mullah Muslim, 5 other insurgents were captured and 12 were killed, the office of the governor of Paktika said in a statement.
NATO did not confirm the reports of insurgent deaths and said that seven people suspected of being militants had been detained.
Last week’s election was marred by rocket attacks, firefights and other violence, along with reports of fraud.
With votes from 17 percent of polling stations counted, President Hamid Karzai leads with 42 percent of the vote, and the top challenger, Abdullah Abdullah, a former foreign minister, has 33 percent. No additional results will be released until Saturday, elections officials said Thursday, and official results are not expected until mid-September.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Rogue Nations Disrespect the Geneva Conventions
« Reply #1 on: 2009-09-07 14:38:41 » |
|
International military violently entered SCA Hospital in Wardak
No Explanation Given as Troops Force Their Way in, Tie Up Staff
Source: swedishcommittee.org
Authors: Anders Fänge
Dated: 2009-09-06
On Wednesday evening September 2 at 10 pm coalition vehicles drove up at SCA’s Hospital in Shaniz, Wardak province along the main highway from Kabul to Ghazni. They entered the hospital compound, reportedly without giving any reason or justification for entering the hospital compound. They searched all rooms, even bathrooms, male and female wards. Rooms that were locked were forcefully entered and the doors of the malnutrition ward and the ultrasound ward were broken by force to gain entry. Upon entering the hospital they tied up four employees and two family members of patients at the hospital. SCA staffs as well as patients (even those in beds) were forced out of rooms/wards throughout the search.
On leaving the hospital at around 12 pm, IMF issued verbal "orders"/instructions; that on receiving any patient that could be an insurgent the hospital staff has to report to the Coalition Forces who would then determine if the hospital would be permitted or not of treating such patient.
“This is simply not acceptable. It is not only a clear violation of globally recognized humanitarian principles about the sanctity of health facilities and staff in areas of conflict but also a clear breach of the civil-military agreement between NGOs and ISAF. We demand guarantees from the IMF command that such violations will not be repeated and that this is made clear to commanders in the field. SCA can not and will not tolerate this kind of treatment by the IMF. Nor is the SCA bound by any orders from IMF regarding to whom treatment can be given” says Anders Fange, Country Director, SCA.
The hospital is located in an area where community acceptance is essential to the continued functioning and safety of the hospital and its staff. The hospital has faced a further intrusion on 13 July, when private security guards escorting a convoy came under attack from insurgents and sought shelter/treatment in a very aggressive manner in the hospital and proceeded to assault staff and damage property.
This latest incident comes at a time when a clinic in Paktika was attacked on 26 August by ANSF/IMF following reports of an alleged AOG commander inside. At issue, in addition to the safety of staff and patients, are perceptions amongst all parties as to the status of clearly marked hospital/medical facilities. When such facilities are no longer regarded with the sanctity which has previously been accorded, then hospitals merely become buildings and a legitimate arena to continue the conflict. Such intrusions have previously been recorded by both sides in the conflict.
Aid group says U.S. troops raid Afghan hospital
Source: Reuters
Authors: Jonathon Burch (Reporting), Jon Hemming (Editing)
Dated: 2009-09-06
U.S. troops burst into a Swedish charity-run hospital in Afghanistan and tied up patients' relatives and staff, the charity said on Sunday, in what it called a breach of deals between the military and aid groups.
In a statement issued on Sunday, the Swedish Committee for Afghanistan (SCA) said soldiers had entered its hospital in Wardak, south of Kabul, on Wednesday evening without explanation and conducted a search, including of female wards and toilets.
"Upon entering the hospital they tied up four employees and two family members of patients at the hospital. SCA staff as well as patients (even those in beds) were forced out of rooms/wards throughout the search," SCA said in a statement.
"This is simply not acceptable," said SCA Country Director Anders Fange told Reuters.
"It is not only a clear violation of globally recognized humanitarian principles about the sanctity of health facilities and staff in areas of conflict but also a clear breach of the civil-military agreement" between aid groups and the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force, he said.
A press officer for the NATO-led force, Lieutenant-Commander Christine Sidenstricker, said she was aware of an incident but did not have enough information to comment.
U.N. spokesman Aleem Siddique said he was not aware of the details of the particular incident, but that international law requires the military to avoid operations in medical facilities.
"The rules are that medical facilities are not combat areas. It's unacceptable for a medical facility to become an area of active combat operations," he said. "The only exception to that under the Geneva Conventions is if a risk is being posed to people."
SCA provides runs health, education and agricultural development programs in about half of the country's provinces. It has been based in Afghanistan since the early 1980s.
When the soldiers left, hospital staff were told to report any potential insurgents they treated to the NATO forces, the Swedish group said. Fange said the SCA did not have to do so.
"There is the Hippocratic oath. If anyone is wounded, sick or in need of treatment ... if they are a human being, then they are received and treated as they should be by international law."
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
rl]Re:Rogue Nations Disrespect the Geneva Conventions
« Reply #2 on: 2009-09-16 05:37:32 » |
|
Inquiry Finds Gaza War Crimes From Both Sides
Source: NY Times
Authors: Neil MacFarquar (UN), Isabel Kershner (Jerusalem) and Taghreed El-Khodary (Gaza)
Dated: 2009-09-15
Refer Also: Full Report [.pdf ]
A United Nations fact-finding mission investigating the three-week war in Gaza last winter issued a highly critical report on Tuesday detailing what it called extensive evidence that both Israel and Palestinian militant groups took actions amounting to war crimes, and possibly crimes against humanity.
While the long-anticipated, 575-page report condemned rocket attacks by Palestinian armed groups against Israeli civilians, it reserved its harshest language for Israel's treatment of the civilian Palestinian population in the Gaza Strip, both during the war and through the longer-term blockade of the territory.
The report called Israel's military assault on Gaza "a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population, radically diminish its local economic capacity both to work and to provide for itself, and to force upon it an ever increasing sense of dependency and vulnerability"
The mission - led by Richard Goldstone, a respected South African judge and once the lead war crimes prosecutor for former Yugoslavia and Rwanda - did not attempt an exhaustive look at the war, instead focusing on 36 cases that it said constituted a representative sample. In 11 of these episodes, it said the Israeli military carried out direct attacks against civilians, including some in which civilians were shot "while they were trying to leave their homes to walk to a safer place, waving white flags."
In all but one of these civilian attacks, the report said, "the facts indicate no justifiable military objective" for them.
The report cited other possible crimes by the Israelis, including "wantonly"; destroying food production, water and sewerage facilities; striking areas, in an effort to kill a small number of combatants, where significant numbers of civilians were gathered; using Palestinians as human shields; and detaining men, women and children in sand pits. It also called Israel's use of weapons like white phosphorus "systematically reckless" and called for banning it in urban areas. [ Hermit : Which also confirms that the US perpetuated war crimes in the destruction of Fallujah. ]
On the Palestinian side, the report said that firing rockets that either deliberately were aimed at Israeli civilians or were so inaccurate as to risk hitting civilians caused widespread trauma and constituted a war crime. It also singled out Palestinian actions within Gaza, including killings and other abuse of members of the rival Fatah political movement as a "serious violation of human rights."
The four members of the fact-finding mission called on both the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority to carry out serious, independent investigations. If that did not occur within the next six months, the mission said, the United Nations Security Council should refer the matter to the International Criminal Court.
The Israeli government said it was studying the report, but Gabriela Shalev, the Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, quickly rejected it, saying it failed to take into account that the operation was in "self-defense."
In a statement, the Foreign Ministry said it had refused to co-operate with the mission, calling it biased from the start.
In Gaza, a spokesman for Hamas said it fired the rockets at Israel to try to defend itself. "We did not intentionally target civilians" said Ahmed Yousef, a Hamas adviser. "We were targeting military bases, but the primitive weapons make mistakes."
Palestinian armed groups have launched about 8,000 rockets and mortars into southern Israel since 2001. During the conflict, the report said, they killed 3 Israeli civilians and a soldier, and injured over 900 people.
But the report did not take a position on the number of Palestinian casualties, noting that they ranged from the Israeli government figure of 1,166 to the Hamas number of 1,444, without saying how many were civilians.
Israel had tried to discredit the mission from the start, saying that the United Nations Human Rights Council has a long record of bashing Israel. The report was released Tuesday to give members of the council time to study it before the panel formally presents it on Sept. 29, said Doune Porter, a spokeswoman for the fact-finding mission, calling it a standard procedure.
The United States recently joined the council. Ian Kelly, a State Department spokesman, said officials were reviewing the report.
Judge Goldstone said the panel heard extensive testimony, conducting 188 interviews and reviewing 10,000 pages of documents and 1,200 photographs. After Israel refused to allow the investigators into the country, the Human Rights Council paid for Israeli witnesses, including the mayor of Ashkelon and Israeli victims, to give testimony in Geneva.
The panel rejected the Israeli version of events surrounding several of the most contentious episodes of the war.
Israel's mortar shelling near a United Nations-run school in the Jabaliya refugee camp, which was sheltering some 1,300 people, killed 35 and wounded up to 40 people, the report said.
The investigation did not exclude the possibility that Israeli forces were responding to fire from an armed Palestinian group, as Israel claimed, but said that this and similar attacks "cannot meet the test of what a reasonable commander would have determined to be an acceptable loss of civilian life for the military advantage sought."
Israel repeatedly accused Hamas of using mosques to shelter armed men or munitions, and a report by Israel said an attack against the Maqadmah mosque in Jabaliya had killed six known militants.
But the Human Rights Council report said the attack came during evening prayers, when some 300 men and women were in the mosque, and killed 15 people. There were no secondary explosions to indicate the presence of an arms cache.
If Israel wanted to destroy a mosque suspected as an arms cache, it should have done so in the middle of the night, Mr. Goldstone said.
The report also noted that some 10 Israeli shells, including white phosphorus, hit the main Gaza City compound of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency while up to 700 civilians were sheltered there. The compound contained a huge fuel depot, but the shells kept coming, it said, though United Nations officials spoke to their Israeli military liaison repeatedly.
In another episode, the report said the destruction of a house in which nearly two dozen relatives died, appeared to be "the result of deliberate demolition and not of combat."
Asked about accusations that he was anti-Israel, Judge Goldstone acknowledged he was Jewish and said, "It is grossly wrong to label a mission or to label a report critical of Israel as being anti-Israel."
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Rogue Nations Disrespect the Geneva Conventions
« Reply #3 on: 2009-09-18 02:31:00 » |
|
Disgrace in The Hague
Source: Ha'Aretz
Authors: Gideon Levy
Dated: 2009-09-17
There's a name on every bullet, and there's someone responsible for every crime. The Teflon cloak Israel has wrapped around itself since Operation Cast Lead has been ripped off, once and for all, and now the difficult questions must be faced. It has become superfluous to ask whether war crimes were committed in Gaza, because authoritative and clear-cut answers have already been given. So the follow-up question has to be addressed: Who's to blame? If war crimes were committed in Gaza, it follows that there are war criminals at large among us. They must be held accountable and punished. This is the harsh conclusion to be drawn from the detailed United Nations report.
For almost a year, Israel has been trying to argue that the blood spilled in Gaza was merely water. One report followed the other, with horrifyingly identical results: siege, white phosphorous, harm of innocent civilians, infrastructure destroyed - war crimes in each and every report. Now, after the publication of the most important and damning report of all, compiled by the commission led by Judge Richard Goldstone, Israel's attempts to discredit them look ludicrous, and the empty bluster of its spokespersons sound pathetic.
So far they have focused on the messengers, not their messages: the researcher for Human Rights Watch collects Nazi memorabilia, Breaking the Silence is a business and Amnesty International is anti-Semitic. All cheap propaganda. This time, though, the messenger is propaganda-proof. No one can seriously claim that Goldstone, an active and ardent Zionist, with deep links to Israel, is an anti-Semite. It would be ridiculous.
Although there were some propagandists who actually tried to use the anti-Semitism weapon against him, even they knew this was farcical. One had to hear the moving interview that Goldstone's daughter Nicole gave to Razi Barkai on Army Radio Wednesday, to understand that he is in fact a lover of Israel and its true friend. She spoke, in Hebrew, of the mental anguish her father experienced and of his conviction that, had he not been there, the report would have been much worse. All he wants is an Israel that is more just, she explained.
Neither can anyone doubt his legal credentials, as a top-level international jurist with an impeccable reputation. The man who found out the truth about Rwanda and Yugoslavia has now done the same regarding Gaza. The former chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in The Hague is not only a legal authority, he is also a moral authority; therefore complaints about the judge won't hold water. Instead, it is time to look closer at the accused. Those responsible are first and foremost Ehud Olmert, Ehud Barak and Gabi Ashkenazi. So far, incredibly, none of them has paid any price for their misdeeds.
Cast Lead was an unrestrained assault on a besieged, totally unprotected civilian population which showed almost no signs of resistance during this operation. It should have raised an immediate furor in Israel. It was a Sabra and Chatila, this time carried out by us. But there was a storm of protest in this country following Sabra and Chatila, whereas after Cast Lead mere citations were dished out.
It should have been enough just to look at the horrendous disparity in casualties - 100 Palestinians killed for every Israeli - to shake the whole of Israeli society. There was no need to wait for Goldstone to understand that a terrible thing had occurred between the Palestinian David and the Israeli Goliath. But the Israelis preferred to look away, or stand with their children on the hills around Gaza and cheer on the carnage-causing bombs.
Under the cover of the committed media, and criminally-biased analysts and experts - all of whom kept information from coming out - and with brainwashed and complacent public opinion, Israel behaved as if nothing had happened. Goldstone has put an end to that, for which we should thank him. After his job is done, the obvious practical steps will be taken.
It would be better for Israel to summon up the courage to change course while there is still time, investigating the matter genuinely and not by means of the Israel Defense Forces' grotesque inquiries, without waiting for Goldstone. Olmert and Tzipi Livni must be brought to pay for their scandalous decision not to cooperate with Goldstone, although at this point that is spilled milk. Now that the report is on its way to the ICC and arrest warrants could soon be issued, all that remains to be done is to immediately set up a state inquiry commission in order to avert disgrace in The Hague.
Perhaps next time we set out to wage another vain and miserable war, we will take into account not only the number of fatalities we are likely to sustain, but also the heavy political damage such wars cause.
On the eve of the Jewish New Year, Israel, deservedly, is becoming an outcast and detested country. We must not forget it for a minute.
| Mandelblit: Israel right not to cooperate with Goldstone
Source: JPost [ Hermit : Never forget that the JPost would make even the NY Times, never mind Attila the Hun, look like a concerned liberal organization. ]
Authors: Yaakov Katz
Dated: 2009-09-16
The distorted and one-sided content in the United Nations report on Operation Cast Lead proves that Israel had been right not to cooperate with the fact-finding mission led by South African Judge Richard Goldstone, IDF Judge-Advocate General Brig.-Gen. Avichai Mandelblit told The Jerusalem Post on Wednesday.
"From an initial review of the report it is clear that it is biased, astonishingly extreme, lacks any basis in reality and is a sharp deviation from the mandate given to the mission," Mandelblit told the Post in an exclusive Rosh Hashana interview that will appear in Friday's newspaper.
"The baseless claim in the report that Cast Lead was planned and launched to intentionally harm the civilian population in the Gaza Strip and to punish it, effectively illustrates the radical distortion and one-sided character of the report and proves, in my opinion, that the decision not to cooperate with the mission was the right one," he said. [ Hermit : IDF Brigadiers used to be significantly more competent than this. ]
The IDF, Mandelblit said, was currently reviewing over 100 complaints that it had received regarding IDF activity during the operation - some of them from human rights groups - and he had already ordered the Military Police to launch 24 criminal investigations.
In the extensive interview, Mandelblit spoke of a new "legal front" that the IDF was facing and warned of attempts by numerous NGOs - and possibly European countries which support them - to deter Israel from launching future military operations by threatening its officers with legal action.
"There is definitely a strategic decision that was made by different organizations and even above them to attack Israel on the legal front," he said.
Meanwhile Wednesday, Prof. Asa Kasher, the author of the IDF's code of ethics, told the Post that the harsh and extreme criticism in the report was partially motivated by anti-Semitic views of Israel. [ Hermit : Totally eliding the fact that Richard Goldstone is not only a highly respected judge, with massive previous experience of both Apartheid and war crimes, though none that rise to Israel's level, but is also a Hebrew speaking Jew from a Jewish community which has been incredibly supportive of Israel over the years. ]
"Part of this criticism is an instinctive reaction that people have for Israel without really thinking," said Kasher, a professor of professional ethics at Tel Aviv University, academic adviser for the National Defense College and an Israel Prize laureate.
"Politics also play a significant role here, since this report was commissioned by the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva that unfairly deals mostly with Israel. These are anti-Israel politics that contain a level of anti-Semitism in them," he added.
Despite his sharp criticism of the Goldstone fact-finding mission, Kasher said that Israel needed to take the report seriously and prepare for the possibility that the charges will be brought before the UN Security Council and the International Criminal Court in The Hague. [ Hermit :The preparations appear to be hysterically accusing anyone examining and identifying as wrong Israel's barbarous crimes of anti-semitic motivation, and calling in markers from every politician in the USA - which has already joined the chorus, no doubt concerned that the next war crimes investigation might be of Israel's partner in ethnic cleansing and war criminals in their own rights, the United States. ]
"The mission was established by the UN and therefore we cannot ignore it," he said.
Kasher called the content of the report "unacceptable" and extremely "hostile" towards Israel. "While the report is critical of Hamas it is far more extreme with its criticism of Israel," he said. [ Well, lets see if there might be a reason outside of "anti-semitism" ]
Killed 1,417 Gazans : 13 Israelis
Left without running water 400,000 Gazans, 0 Israelis
homes were destroyed or badly damaged 4,000 Gazan, 0 Israeli
Government buildings attacked 80 Gazan, 0 Israeli
Killed Children 313 Gazans : 0 Israeli
Injured Children 1606 Gazan : 0 Israeli
Injured (including children, most non-combatants) 5,300 Gazan, 0 Israeli
Perhaps Israel's "hostile" actions - blatantly violating the numerous treaties - account for the fact that the report is far more extreme with its criticism of Israel. ] [/i]
One example, he said, was how the report opened with a detailed description of the Israeli blockade on Gaza.
"It is as if this is how it all started," he said. "They did not bother to ask why there was a siege which was done out of self-defense because of things Hamas was planning at sea, above ground and underground." [ Hermit : The siege was determined to be an ongoing violation, by Israel, of the ceasefire established by Hamas six months previously. ]
As the author of the IDF Code of Ethics, Kasher said he was not concerned with a possible moral breakdown in the military as portrayed in the Goldstone fact-finding report - and countless other NGO reports that have been published since Operation Cast Lead.
"I do not see in any of the reports a reason to change the values or ethics of the IDF or the military's doctrine, which places an emphasis on the value of life," he said. [ Hermit : As long as the life is that of a Jew. Judging by Israeli speech, actions, demographic reality and casualties, Palestinians appear not to count at all. ]
"I also have no doubt that the claims of deliberate and disproportional killing are baseless. If they weren't, and IDF troops shot deliberately at innocent Palestinians, then there there should have been thousands of dead Palestinians. If the IDF killed freely then the dead should be half women and half men like the population in Gaza. The fact is that the IDF did not do this." [ Hermit : But this is not what is claimed by anybody other than the current speaker. Otherwise referred to as a blatant straw man. ] |
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Rogue Nations Disrespect the Geneva Conventions
« Reply #4 on: 2009-09-21 11:33:52 » |
|
War Crimes and Denial
Source: Antiwar.com
Authors: Uri Avnery
Dated: 2009-09-21
Uri Avnery is a longtime Israeli peace activist. Since 1948 he has advocated the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. In 1974, Uri Avnery was the first Israeli to establish contact with the PLO leadership. In 1982 he was the first Israeli ever to meet Yasser Arafat, after crossing the lines in besieged Beirut. He served three terms in the Israeli Knesset and is the founder of Gush Shalom (Peace Bloc). Visit his Web site.
Is there no limit to the wiles of those dastardly anti-Semites?
Now they have decided to slander the Jews with another blood libel. Not the old accusation of slaughtering Christian children to use their blood for baking Passover matzoth, as in the past, but of the mass slaughter of women and children in Gaza.
And who did they put at the head of the commission which was charged with this task? Neither a British Holocaust-denier nor a German neo-Nazi, nor even an Iranian fanatic, but of all people a Jewish judge who bears the very Jewish name of Goldstone (originally Goldstein, of course). And not just a Jew with a Jewish name, but a Zionist, whose daughter, Nicole, is an enthusiastic Zionist who once "made Aliyah" and speaks fluent Hebrew. And not just a Jewish Zionist, but a South African who opposed apartheid and was appointed to the country’s Constitutional Court when that system was abolished.
All this in order to defame the most moral army in the world, fresh from waging the most just war in history!
Richard Goldstone is not the only Jew manipulated by the worldwide anti-Semitic conspiracy. Throughout the three weeks of the Gaza War, more than 10,000 Israelis demonstrated against it again and again. They were photographed carrying signs saying "End the massacre in Gaza," "Stop the war crimes, " "Israel commits war crimes," "Bombing civilians is a war crime." They chanted in unison: "Olmert, Olmert, it is true – They’re waiting in The Hague for you!"
Who would have believed that there are so many anti-Semites in Israel?!
The official Israeli reaction to the Goldstone report would have been amusing, if the matter had not been so grave.
Except for the "usual suspects" (Gideon Levy, Amira Hass, and their ilk), the condemnation of the report was unanimous, total, and extreme, from Shimon Peres, that advocate of every abomination, down to the last scribbler in the newspapers.
Nobody, but nobody, dealt with the subject itself. Nobody examined the detailed conclusions. With such an anti-Semitic smear, there is no need for that. Actually, there is no need to read the report at all.
The public, in all its diversity, stood up like one person, in order to rebuff the plot, as it has learned to do in the thousand years of pogroms, the Spanish Inquisition, and the Holocaust. A siege mentality, the ghetto mentality.
The instinctive reaction in such a situation is denial. It’s just not true. It never happened. It’s all a pack of lies.
By itself, that is a natural reaction. When a human being is faced with a situation which he cannot handle, denial is the first refuge. If things did not happen, there is no need to cope. Basically, there is no difference between the deniers of the Armenian genocide, the deniers of the annihilation of the Native Americans, and the deniers of the atrocities of all wars.
From this point of view, it can be said that denial is almost "normal." But with us it has been developed into an art form.
We have a special method: when something happens that we don’t want to confront, we direct the spotlight to one specific detail, something completely marginal, and begin to insist on it, debate it, examine it from all angles as if it were a matter of life and death.
Take the Yom Kippur war. It broke out because for six years, beginning with the 1967 war, Israel had cruised like a Ship of Fools, intoxicated with victory songs, victory albums, and the belief in the invincibility of the Israeli army. Golda Meir treated the Arab world with open contempt and rebuffed the peace overtures of Anwar Sadat. The result: more than 2,000 young Israelis killed, and who knows how many Egyptians and Syrians.
And what was furiously debated? The "Omission." "Why were the reserves not called up in time? Why were the tanks not moved in advance?" Menachem Begin thundered in the Knesset, and about this books and articles galore were written and a blue-ribbon judicial board of inquiry deliberated.
The First Lebanon War was a political blunder and a military failure. It lasted 18 years, gave birth to Hezbollah, and established it as a regional force. And what was discussed? Whether Ariel Sharon had deceived Begin and was responsible for his illness and eventual death.
The Second Lebanon War was a disgrace from beginning to end, a superfluous war that caused massive destruction, wholesale slaughter, and the flight of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians from their homes, without achieving an Israeli victory. And what was our debate about? For what was a commission of inquiry appointed? About the way the decision to start the war was taken. Was there an appropriate process of decision-making? Was there orderly staff work?
About the Gaza War, there was no debate at all, because everything was perfectly all right. A brilliant campaign. Marvelous political and military leadership. True, we did not convince the Gaza Strip population to overthrow their leaders; true, we did not succeed in freeing the captured soldier Gilad Shalit; true, the whole world condemned us – but we killed a lot of Arabs, destroyed their environment, and taught them a lesson they will not forget.
Now, a profound debate on the Goldstone report is going on. Not about its content, God forbid. What’s there to discuss? But about the one point that is really important: was our government right in deciding to boycott the commission? Perhaps it would have been better to take part in the deliberations? Did our Foreign Office act as foolishly as it usually does? (Our Ministry of Defense, of course, never behaves foolishly.) Tens of thousands of words about this world-shaking question were poured out from the newspapers, the radio, and TV, with every self-respecting commentator weighing in.
So why did the Israeli government boycott the commission? The real answer is quite simple: they knew full well that the commission, any commission, would have to reach the conclusions it did reach.
In fact, the commission did not say anything new. Almost all the facts were already known: the bombing of civilian neighborhoods, the use of flechette rounds and white phosphorus against civilian targets, the bombing of mosques and schools, the blocking of rescue parties from reaching the wounded, the killing of fleeing civilians carrying white flags, the use of human shields, and more. The Israeli army did not allow journalists near the action, but the war was amply documented by the international media in all its details; the entire world saw it in real time on the TV screens. The testimonies are so many and so consistent that any reasonable person can draw their own conclusions.
If the officers and soldiers of the Israeli army had given testimony before the commission, it would perhaps have been impressed by their angle, too – the fear, the confusion, the lack of orientation – and the conclusions could have been somewhat less severe. But the main thrust would not have changed. After all, the whole operation was based on the assumption that it was possible to overthrow the Hamas government in Gaza by causing intolerable suffering to the civilian population. The damage to civilians was not "collateral," whether avoidable or unavoidable, but a central feature of the operation itself.
Moreover, the rules of engagement were designed to achieve "zero losses" to our forces – avoiding losses at any price. That was the conclusion our army – led by Gabi Ashkenazi – drew from the Second Lebanon War. The results speak for themselves: 200 dead Palestinians for every Israeli soldier killed by the other side – 1,400:6.
Every real investigation must inevitably lead to the same conclusions as those of the Goldstone commission. Therefore, there was no Israeli wish for a real inquiry. The "investigations" that did take place were a farce. The person responsible, the military advocate general, kippa-wearing brigadier Avichai Mendelblit, was in charge of this task. He was promoted this week to the rank of major general. The promotion and its timing speak a clear language.
So it is clear that there is no chance of the Israeli government belatedly opening a real investigation, as demanded by Israeli peace activists.
In order to be credible, such an investigation would have to have the status of a State Commission of Inquiry as defined by Israeli law, headed by a Supreme Court justice. It would have to conduct its investigations publicly, in full view of the Israeli and international media. It would have to invite the victims, Gaza inhabitants, to testify together with the soldiers who took part in the war. It would have to investigate in detail each of the accusations that appear in the Goldstone report. It would have to check out the orders issued and decisions made, from the chief of staff down to the squad level. It would have to study the briefings of Air Force pilots and drone operators.
This list suffices to make it clear why such an investigation will not and cannot take place. Instead, the worldwide Israeli propaganda machine will continue to defame the Jewish judge and the people who appointed him.
Not all the Israeli accusations against the UN are groundless. For example: why does the organization investigate the war crimes in Gaza (and in former Yugoslavia and Darfur, investigations in which Goldstone took part as chief prosecutor) and not the actions of the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Russians in Chechnya? [i] [ Hermit : Good questions! ] [/b]
But the main argument of the Israeli government is that the UN is an anti-Semitic organization, and its Human Rights Commission is doubly anti-Semitic.
Israel’s relations with the UN are very complex. The state was founded on the basis of a UN resolution, and it is doubtful whether it would have come into being at precisely that time and those circumstance had there been no such resolution. Our Declaration of Independence is largely based on this resolution. A year later, Israel was accepted as a UN member in spite of the fact that it had not allowed the (then) 750,000 Palestinian refugees to return.
But this honeymoon soured quickly. David Ben-Gurion spoke with contempt about UM-Shmum ("UM" is the Hebrew for "UN," the prefix "shm" signifies contempt). From then on to this very day, Israel has systematically violated almost every single UN resolution that concerned it, complaining that there was an "automatic majority" of Arab and communist countries stacked against it. This attitude was reinforced when, on the eve of the 1967 war, the UN troops in Sinai where precipitously withdrawn on the demand of Gamal Abdel-Nasser. And, of course, by the UN resolution (later annulled) equating Zionism with racism.
Now this argument is raising its head again. The UN, it is being said, is anti-Israeli, which means (of course) anti-Semitic. Everyone who acts in the name of the UN is an Israel-hater. To hell with the UN. To hell with the Goldstone report.
That is, however, a woefully shortsighted policy. The general public throughout the world is hearing about the report and remembering the pictures they saw on their TV screens during the Gaza war. The UN enjoys much respect. In the wake of the "Molten Lead" operation, Israel’s standing in the world has been steadily going down, and this report will send it down even further. This will have practical consequences – political, military, economic, and cultural. Only a fool – or an Avigdor Lieberman – can ignore that.
If there is no credible Israeli investigation, there will be demands for the UN Security Council to refer the matter to the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Barack Obama would have to decide whether to veto such a resolution – a move that would cause grave harm to the U.S., and for which he would demand a high price from Israel.
As has been said before: UM-Shmum may turn into UM-Boom.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Rogue Nations Disrespect the Geneva Conventions
« Reply #5 on: 2009-10-24 03:06:43 » |
|
Israel Warns UN Chief Not to Move Forward With Goldstone Report
World Stability Depends on Killing War Crimes Report, Lieberman Warns
Source: Antiwar.com
Authors: Jason Ditz
Dated: 2009-10-23
Top Israeli officials are reportedly moving forward with an aggressive campaign to prevent the Goldstone Report from being considered either within the UN Security Council or by the General Assembly, threatening to abandon even the notion of peace talks if such a thing happens.
Deputy Prime Minister Silvan Shalom reportedly called Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon to tell him that the report, authored by South African jurist Richard Goldstone, was “unacceptable and biased.”
He also claimed to have gotten the assurances of Russia and China that they would oppose the measure, though both voted in favor of the report last week in the Human Rights Council. Neither Russia or China has commented on this claim as of yet.
Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman took the attack one step further, calling Ban to tell him that the report was a threat to a “stable and balanced” world and showed the hypocrisy of the entire planet and bias against Israel.
Lieberman also claimed the measure were hurt the chances of a peace deal, though this claim will probably be harmed by the fact that only two weeks ago Lieberman insisted peace was impossible in the first place and accused anyone who expected a peace deal of being “delusional.”
The Goldstone Report details war crimes committed by both Israel and Hamas during the January invasion of the Gaza Strip. The Israeli government has insisted that Goldstone, though Jewish himself, is secretly an anti-semite with an axe to grind against Israel.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
|
Logged
