Constant Reader Bob McManus caught my attention with a comment on another thread:
…in not providing adequate security for Iraqis I consider it a slam-dunk case that the Bush administration are war criminals. Shinseki’s pre-war statements prove prior intent, and I would consider most European countries justified in arresting Bush within their borders.
He provided this from the Human Rights Watch site in defense of that statement:
Security in Occupied Areas
Question: What are the duties of an occupying force to provide security?
An occupying power has a duty to ensure public order and safety in the territory under its authority. Under customary international law, this duty begins once a stable regime of occupation has been established. But under the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the duty attaches as soon as the occupying force exercises control or authority over civilians of that territory — that is, at the soonest possible moment (a principle reflected in U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10).
Military commanders on the spot must prevent and where necessary suppress serious violations involving the local population under their control or subject to their authority. The occupying force is responsible for protecting the population from violence by third parties, such as newly formed armed groups or forces of the former regime. Ensuring local security includes protecting persons, including minority groups and former government officials, from reprisals and revenge attacks.
Occupying forces may have to be deployed to secure public order until the time local or international police can be mobilized for such responsibilities. Unless such forces are facing hostilities, the use of force is governed by international standards for law enforcement. That is, only necessary and proportionate force may be used and only to the required extent.
Asked what part of that the US is in violation of, he wrote “the first sentence.”
I’ve been arguing that we’re not living up to our obligations here, but is the shortage of troops, the clear lack of security, actually a crime?
UPDATE: old title was unclear
I would consider most European countries justified in arresting Bush within their borders.
Most not all, which ones would not be justified, bob (Edward)?
No.
Nathan…
A+ for conciseness, but could you elaborate a bit?
On the other thread I said:
Unless such forces are facing hostilities, the use of force is governed by international standards for law enforcement. That is, only necessary and proportionate force may be used and only to the required extent.
So, given the size of the force in place, are the militatry commanders guilty of too much leniency in that they are facing hostilities and have not ratcheted up the response to eliminate the danger to the Iraqi people?
bob answered that “I’m getting it”.
So, what am I getting Bob, that there are too few troops or that the troops that are there haven’t been allowed sow the type of destruction that would deter these attacks? Or both? Because if I recall, you advocate a draft, and essentially a region-wide war against Iraq, Iran, SA and Syria.
Most not all, which ones would not be justified, bob (Edward)?
Oh, I’d say, on the grounds that doing so might bring legal problems their way, the list would include Albania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, and the United Kingdom.
Edward,
The Coalition is providing security for the people of Iraq. One can argue whether it is sufficient or not. One cannot say, however, that security does not exist there.
Just as the RCMP cannot protect me from all crime, President Bush cannot protect Iraqis from all danger. I would think that the framers of the above excerpt had this in mind.
I must say that the hyper-legalism of you Yanks continues to confound me. You are at war! No, you will not be able to protect every Iraqi from any wild-eyed jihadi that blows himself up.
So much for brevity… or a quick response for that matter.
Nathan,
The Coalition is providing security for the people of Iraq.
No they’re not. The borders are wide open. Whole cities are left to the poorly trained Iraqi police. How can you claim the coalition is providing security?
Edward,
They are providing security. It may very well be insufficient, but it exists. We are not dealing with total anarchy.
My problem with the line of thought shown above is that it implies that anything less than total security from attack is a failure. Not just a failure, mind you, but criminally negligent (I am no lawyer).
I would think that the intent of the above statement was to make sure that occupying countries tried to provide some security, not to make sure that they provided total security. Obviously, Bush cannot make Iraq as safe as everyone (including him) would like.
We are not dealing with total anarchy.
Are you reading the papers Nathan?
Not total anarchy relative to what?
Edward, Nathan, I think the point is that Bush can’t claim that he didn’t know that his administration was providing insufficient troops to occupy Iraq and safeguard the people of Iraq. (Or rather, Bush himself might easily claim that he had no idea, but that’s because he’s completely incompetent to be President.)
The Bush administration was told the number of troops that would be required: they were warned that the situation in Iraq might easily get out of hand: they were advised of the various boiling issues of national identity and religion that had been held down forcibly by Saddam Hussein’s regime. They ignored all of this and sent far too few troops to establish any kind of security for the people of the country they were occupying.
Bush’s criminal behavior in attacking Iraq in the first place is far more easily established (Iraq posed no threat to the US and Bush must have known this) but I think Bob has a point: Bush & Co utterly ignored their legal obligations to the people of Iraq because they assumed that everything would go just fine and their legal obligations wouldn’t cost them anything.
(Analogy) If a builder failed to provide his employees with safety helmets, on the basis that he’d just assumed everything would go fine and his employees wouldn’t need them, he would have committed an offense even if nothing did go wrong. If something did go wrong, and someone for whom he was responsible was killed or injured because they were on his building site with no safety helmet, yes, the builder would find himself in court: “I didn’t think anything would go wrong” would not be an adequate defense.
“Military commanders on the spot must prevent and where necessary suppress serious violations involving the local population under their control or subject to their authority.”
And of course if they take ‘necessary’ steps to suppress serious violations they will most likely still face war crimes charges because they aren’t fighting a uniformed army so it is very difficult to separate the militants from the civilians. Which, by the way, is an intentional tactic of the militants and in fact removes you from the protections of the Geneva Conventions if you want to be lawyerly about such things.
I suspect the answer to your question is no, because of the ‘unless facing hostilities clause’. I also suspect that the answer is no, because occupying forces are not responsible for the actions of people who are resisting the occupation. I also suspect the answer is no because no police force can totally ‘secure’ anything. I also suspect the answer is no because the militants have removed themselves from Geneva protections. I also suspect the answer is no because if the rules were construed in such a way, it would be trivial to force war crime charges just by acting like a terrorist, which would make a mockery of the already pathetic state of international law.
‘The borders are wide open’.
And what is your point exactly? Borders that size can never be totally secured. We would notice if tanks came across. We would notice if armoured trucks came in. That is just about as secure as non-Communist borders get.
Had to leave, take my 40 lb puppies to the vet
For Timmy: Yes the most was a mistake. Luxemburg
And for Crionna
Look I don’t know how the law is enforced. I would not hold the military commanders responsible
for the failure in planning or the failure to readjust. Following orders is a defense.
I think.
And of course if they take ‘necessary’ steps to suppress serious violations they will most likely still face war crimes charges because they aren’t fighting a uniformed army so it is very difficult to separate the militants from the civilians.
Which is why Bob was (I assume) making the point that it’s Bush who could be prosecuted as a war criminal (sorry if I’m mis-stating your point, Bob) – because it was Bush & Co who made the decision not to send enough troops for the military command on the spot to be able to do a competent job in Iraq. As we see.
Crionna, we had a soldier per 200 people in post war Germany.
The idea is that when you overturn a government, disband the army and the police….bad stuff can happen. This is not a wacky guess.
So you have to be prepared to be the cops in an occupied country, keeping in mind it will be worse than the usual police conditions.
We could have collected arms at least. And we can not just let Fallujah go
No one argues total security
“Good faith effort will all means available” is acceptable to me, and I believe Bush fails that test
Muqtada Sadr and his Mahdi militia have been killing people for a year; read paragraph two.
Bob, I’ve been told too many times that Iraq is not Germany or Japan, so that comparison doesn’t seem valid to me.
My question is, ultimately, what do we do to fix the problem? I mean, fine, if it floats your boat, try to get The President idicted for a war crime. Call him incompetent. Say over and over again that the war was illegal or immoral or ill-advised. Heck, go farther and call anyone who supported it an idiot.
In the end though, this does absolutely zero to help the people in Iraq or the soldiers there. I want some idea of what to do now not who to blame.
Maybe what should be done is some kind of forced WPA projects. I mean, the men would be easier to police if they were all in one place, right? So why don’t we set up a big works project in each town, order every non-employed male not in school to the project and pay them.
They’d be easier to “guard”, those not adhering would be easier to find and arrest, male unemployment would be zero and the sewers would get fixed.
Criona, Bremer should have been trying to do something about Iraqi unemployment last year. Not with makework projects. By hiring only Iraqi companies for reconstruction projects whenever possible, and by requiring all reconstruction projects to use Iraqis as employees whenever possible.
Didn’t happen. US companies got the reconstruction work, and hired cheap foreign labor to make their already-astonishing profits even higher. Result: lots of money going back to big US corporations, damn-all money staying in Iraq.
Of course Bremer could announce that policy now. Maybe it’s not too late. Of course, it would mean less of a profit for big US corporations… and can you imagine Bush ever making a decision that means big US corporations will make smaller profits?
“Maybe what should be done is some kind of forced WPA projects.”
Absolutely. A great idea.
A draft is not quick enough, tho it would have helped two years ago. I would still get every available warm body over to Iraq. Of any skill or no skill at all. I, Bush, would get on TV and beg for 5 million volunteers. I would ask Congress for another 100 million dollars.
I would tell the Iraqis “Turn in your arms, or we will shoot you.” I would shoot a bunch of people. I think the war is still on. I would install a curfew. I would lower force protection in favor of search-and-destroy. I would act like an occupier.
Both Tacitus and S Holsclaw have made lists.
I don’t know what to do. But my first step would be to say I am responsible, and then act like it.
But you know none of this matters, because we are turning over sovereignty July 1. Whatever that means, part of it means we are no longer responsible.
Jes, I can’t imagine any elected official making a decision that means US companies make less profits.
I can’t imagine any elected official making a decision that means US companies make less profits.
So your thinking is that the US is bound to fail in Iraq because US elected officials are incapable of making useful decisions about the reconstruction?
Your suggestion is that all Iraqis not in school should be forcibly employed on useful projects. But if American companies were given the job of doing those useful projects, they could make higher profits. By employing Iraqis, you would be making US companies make less profits.
The sad thing is, you’re not wrong. Bush & Co did see the reconstruction primarily as a means to reward American companies with high profits – and the results are as we see them now.
By employing Iraqis, you would be making US companies make less profits.
Iraqis are more expensive than Americans? I doubt it.
Iraqis are more expensive than Americans? I doubt it.
Iraqis aren’t Americans, Timmy. Money paid directly to Iraqis is money that’s not going to American companies, hence lower profits for American companies. Can’t be having that, not when the primary purpose of the reconstruction is to let American companies make high profits.
Of course, if the primary purpose of the reconstruction of Iraq was to benefit Iraqis, there wouldn’t be an unemployment problem in Iraq right now…
Jes, Iraqis are incapable of working for American Companies?
There wouldn’t be an unemployment problem in Iraq. You are kidding right?
Now how many capable Iraqi companies are there that are not being utilized?
Crionna, we had a soldier per 200 people in post war Germany.
If we had a soldier per 200 people in Iraq, we’d have…125,000 soldiers there.
Wonder how many we actually have?
I believe Bush fails that test
Don’t go trying to foist your pagan beliefs on us, mister.
Wonder how many we actually have?
not enough.
We had 20 per 200 in Germany, 4 per 200 in Bosnia and Kosovo, and 1 per 200 in Japan.
We’ve gone over this before.
Sorry about the extra zero in my ratio. And umm, the doubling.
And y’all know I am not an ANSWER guy who wants to put Bush or anybody else on trial and my accusations run more to wishful thinking and recklessness. And cheapness.
I just want to win the damn war.
I just want to win the damn war.
Then vote for Kerry.
Jes, I simply do not believe that there is a politician on the national stage that is not in the pockets of some big business or another, including Kerry.
I’m also unclear on just how many Iraqi companies, or the young unemployed men we seem to be fighting now, are skilled in the implementation of recent power and/or sewage treatment plant or large scale water distribution technology since I thought I had seen somewhere lots of palaces and such that went up with money that should have, perhaps, been spent modernising the country. I figure that perhaps companies who we know already have those skills might be more efficient at competing those projects.
Should Iraqi workers be hired where possible? I’d say yes. But then I’m not responsible for the job’s completion, so hey, who am I to demand that Iraqis be hired to do the job?
Are there enough projects where the skills of the average young Iraqi man (hell the average young American man for that matter) could be used? Well, obviously not, hence a public works recommendation.
But then I’m not responsible for the job’s completion, so hey, who am I to demand that Iraqis be hired to do the job?
You’re one of the taxpayers helping to stump up however many billions this reconstruction is going to cost, and getting only one third of the value you should be getting for it.
Seriously: If reconstruction money is paid to American companies who then import cheap foreign labor (ie, not Iraqis) then the only benefit to the reconstruction is the completion of the project – and, if stories coming out of Iraq can be trusted, at a cost far higher than if an Iraqi company had been hired.
If reconstruction money is paid to Iraqi companies and to Iraqi labor, besides the benefit of getting the project finished, you get two further benefits back: one, you decrease Iraqi unemployment, and have fewer people roaming the streets with nothing to do: two, you improve the Iraqi economy with a good inflow of hard cash. Triple value for each dollar.
None of this need have been put in terms of “lower profits for American companies” if Bush & Co hadn’t, from the start, looked on the reconstruction of Iraq as an opportunity to reward big American companies with fat contracts, and punish nations who hadn’t agreed to support their war by refusing reconstruction contracts to their companies.
“and punish nations who hadn’t agreed to support their war by refusing reconstruction contracts to their companies.”
Whoa, there I was sort of with you until that line. What would hiring French companies have to do with keeping Iraqi unemployment down?
Outsiders are hired for their expertise, it isn’t as if we are flying people in from out of the country to dig trenches. Iraq is a country with its expertise severely degraded by disuse. I’m not convinced by your rhetoric that somehow Bush is encouraging a bad outcome in Iraq so he can spend more money cleaning it up. Bush may be many things, but that devious he ain’t.
Jes,
I understand your point. However, you didn’t address whether or not those Iraqi companies and workers have the skills necessary to complete those projects in the first place.
My point is that we Americans always seem to want to do the BIG things. Hence the need for technically competent workers working for companies skilled in the implementation of the projects at hand. It seems to me that the projects were chosen poorly given the immediate needs of the Iraqi people (something to do that pays and immediate resumption of basic services).
Perhaps the smart thing to do would have been to hire Iraqi companies to patch up the old systems, since they assumably have skills in that technology (unless Saddam flew in Germans to fix those while they were building underground bunkers) rather than to build stuff using newer technology that the Iraqis could not implement.
The result would have been, as you suggest, beneficial to Iraqis, but in the short run. In the long run that stuff would need to be replaced much sooner. Seems to me we’re guilty of giving an expensive tractor to someone who can’t drive it and who only needed a mule in the first place.
Is that a sinister plot to defraud the people of Iraq and the US or was it just arrogance and poor frigging planning coupled with an unrealistic view of the Iraqis’ patience?
“…would consider most European countries justified in arresting Bush within their borders.”
I want to go firmly on record as saying that jurisdiction should be surrendered to the Duchy of Grand Fenwick.
Whoa, there I was sort of with you until that line. What would hiring French companies have to do with keeping Iraqi unemployment down?
Nothing at all. I was merely pointing out that Bush & Co’s attitude to awarding reconstruction contracts seemed to slide between “American companies should get them!” and “French companies shouldn’t get them!” and never hit the point which I would solidly have supported: that Iraqi companies should get the contracts. I think it’s relevant to point out that where Bush & Co were concerned, they were making the reconstruction contracts political – but not aiming the right way.
However, you didn’t address whether or not those Iraqi companies and workers have the skills necessary to complete those projects in the first place.
Well, given that Iraqi companies and Iraqi workers managed (as far as the sanctions let them) to reconstruct Iraq after the 1991, we can assume that most of them are still around – 13 years isn’t that long a time. There might well be projects for which there were no Iraqi companies able to do the work – but the default assumption seems to have been to get a US company to do it, and to let them hire whatever cheap foreign labor they wanted.
Is that a sinister plot to defraud the people of Iraq and the US or was it just arrogance and poor frigging planning coupled with an unrealistic view of the Iraqis’ patience?
The latter, I think: but the end result of this unbelievable arrogance and stupidity has in fact been to defraud the people of Iraq and the US, to the enrichment of big US companies. Which is why, I think, Bush & Co failed so badly: they have a mindset that makes them apparently incapable of seeing that “profitable for big US corporations” is not identical with “the welfare of the US people”. That’s their track record.
I just want to win the damn war.
Eddie’s retort vote for Kerry, cause as we all know, Kerry will lower the expectations as to what constitutes a win, like getting the French to help.
[sigh]
Thanks for making it clear that your definition of “victory” has nothing to do with humanitarian concern for Iraqis, Timmy. Nope: for you, it won’t count as a “victory” unless the US accomplishes whatever it is Bush says the US ought to accomplish this week, without French help. Because it’s far more important to keep the French out than anything else.
/sarcasm
Victory for me is what it has always been a constitutional democratic Iraqi Republic and nothing less.
If I thought the French would be of assistance I would say so. Over the summer and into the fall, you will begin to understand how certain members of the UNSC were bought and purchased by Saddam. And then you will begin (and nobody is that obtuse not to) to understand what was going on.
I want to go firmly on record as saying that jurisdiction should be surrendered to the Duchy of Grand Fenwick.
I’m thinking Freedonia, myself. Rufus T. Firefly is our man.
Freedonia, I’m thinking of Sylvania.
Kerry will lower the expectations as to what constitutes a win,
This from a supporter of the man who’s made lowering expectations an art form? Puh-leaze…October’s not that far away Timmy…I’m feeling good about my prediction.
When it counts, the Cowboy from Crawford stays the course.
On the upcoming remake of Kerry, I thought after the huge voter tunrout in the Dem primaries everyone knew who Kerry was. Kerry will drone on without any clarity which at the end of the day will only deliver the ABB crowd.
Overall, I’m looking forward to a free night of drinks.
Overall, I’m looking forward to a free night of drinks.
Hope springs eternal, I guess…
Eddie, what issues will dominante the news cycle over the next four to five months.
A. Kerry’s makeover and his wife’s tax returns
B. The Sox 16 game lead over the Yanks
C. UN Oil for Food Scandal-M.E.Weapons Bazaar.
D. Saddam’s trial and the 1 July handover.
E. A and B
F. C and D.
I don’t care what dominates (and why are you drinking so early…a 16 game lead???)…the central question that will get you the night of free drinking is the goalposts one.
Bush could pull bin Laden out of a spider hole the same day Hussein is executed the same day the UN building is brought down and if we haven’t lived up to our promise in Iraq, you’re still buying… ;-]
“Eddie, what issues will dominante the news cycle over the next four to five months.”
Did Timmy forget the Jackson, Bryant, and Peterson trials? Too much real news in that list.
“Outsiders are hired for their expertise, it isn’t as if we are flying people in from out of the country to dig trenches” Sebastian
“TRIVANDRUM, India – Airports all over India are now overflowing with workers returning from the Middle East. Every day thousands of Indians are coming back, leaving their life-long earnings and their dreams of a better life behind with their jobs. India’s economy will be affected by the war on Iraq. India relies on Gulf states for the bulk of its oil supplies and nearly 3.5 million Indian expatriates are employed in the region.”
I though we had been insourcing(?) Iraq laborer jobs from India. Why is another question. This ain’t a great source, People’s World Weekly, but it is kinda straight news.
Victory for me is what it has always been a constitutional democratic Iraqi Republic and nothing less.
I shall be interested to see if you stick with that after Bush moves the goalposts. Again.
Over the summer and into the fall, you will begin to understand how certain members of the UNSC were bought and purchased by Saddam. And then you will begin (and nobody is that obtuse not to) to understand what was going on.
Well, I certainly hope that you pay attention to the Security Council inquiry, Timmy: because it looks as if Halliburton’s name (you remember: VPOTUS was the CEO and still receives payments from it) is going to come up again, and again, and again… just as it keeps coming up in stories about corruption in post-conquest Iraq.
“That is why France fully supports the independent inquiry set up by the U.N. The truth must come out. Was France a major beneficiary of oil-for-food contracts, as several conservative columnists have claimed recently? Definitely not. From the beginning of the program to its end, French contracts accounted for 8% of the total. We were Iraq’s eighth-largest supplier. In addition, throughout the program a sizable proportion of the contracts dubbed “French” were in fact contracts from foreign companies using their French branches, subsidiaries and agents. Among them were U.S. firms providing spare parts for the oil industry (including several subsidiaries of Halliburton). They submitted contracts through French subsidiaries for more than $200 million.” cite
“I’m thinking Freedonia, myself. Rufus T. Firefly is our man.”
We all hail Fredonia, do we not? But Grand Fenwick must take custody of the criminal Bush because Grand Duchess Gloriana is more of a lady than Margaret Dumont.