[Cerchio] tommy franks sotto accusa in belgio

>Prosecute Franks
>The war crimes case in Belgium illustrates the folly of Blair=92s belief=20
>that the US is interested in justice
>by George Monbiot
>The Guardian
>May 20, 2003
>
>Belgium is becoming an interesting country. In the course of a week, it=20
>has managed to upset both liberal opinion in Europe - by granting the=20
>far-right Vlaams Blok 18 parliamentary seats - and illiberal opinion in=20
>the United States. On Wednesday, a human rights lawyer filed a case with=20
>the federal prosecutors whose purpose is to arraign Thomas Franks, the=20
>commander of the American troops in Iraq, for crimes against humanity.=20
>This may be the only judicial means, anywhere on earth, of holding the US=
=20
>government to account for its actions.
>
>The case has been filed in Belgium, on behalf of 17 Iraqis and two=20
>Jordanians, because Belgium has a law permitting foreigners to be tried=20
>for war crimes, irrespective of where they were committed. The suit has=20
>little chance of success, for the law was hastily amended by the=20
>government at the beginning of this month. But the fact that the=20
>plaintiffs had no choice but to seek redress in Belgium speaks volumes=20
>about the realities of Tony Blair's vision for a world order led by the=20
>US, built on democracy and justice.
>
>
>Franks appears to have a case to answer. The charges fall into four=20
>categories: the use of cluster bombs; the killing of civilians by other=20
>means; attacks on the infrastructure essential for public health and the=20
>failure to prevent the looting of hospitals. There is plenty of supporting=
=20
>evidence.1
>
>
>US forces dropped around 1500 cluster bombs from the air and fired an=20
>unknown quantity from artillery pieces. British troops fired 2100.2 Each=20
>contained several hundred bomblets, which fragment into shrapnel. Between=
=20
>200 and 372 Iraqi civilians were killed by them during the war.3 Others,=20
>mostly children, continue to be killed by those bomblets which failed to=20
>explode when they hit the ground. The effects of their deployment in=20
>residential areas were both predictable and predicted. This suggests that=
=20
>their use there breached protocol II to the Geneva Conventions, which=20
>prohibits "violence to the life, health and physical or mental well-being"=
=20
>of non-combatants.4
>
>On several occasions, US troops appear to have opened fire on unarmed=20
>civilians. In Nasiriya, they shot at any vehicle that approached their=20
>positions. In one night alone, they killed 12 civilians.5 On a bridge on=20
>the outskirts of Baghdad, they shot 15 in two days.6 Last month, US troops=
=20
>fired on peaceful demonstrators in Mosul, killing seven, and in Fallujah,=
=20
>killing 13 and injuring 75.7 All these actions appear to offend the 4th=20
>convention.
>
>The armed forces also deliberately destroyed civilian infrastructure,=20
>bombing the electricity lines upon which water treatment plants depended,=
=20
>with the result that cholera and dysentery have spread. Protocol II=20
>prohibits troops from attacking "objects indispensable to the survival of=
=20
>the civilian population such as ... drinking water installations and=20
>supplies".8
>
>The 4th convention also insists that an occupying power is responsible for=
=20
>"ensuring and maintaining ... the medical and hospital establishments and=
=20
>services, public health and hygiene in the occupied territory".9 Yet when=
=20
>the US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was asked why his troops had=20
>failed to prevent the looting of public buildings, he replied, "Stuff=20
>happens. Free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do=20
>bad things."10 Many hospitals remain closed or desperately under-supplied.
>
>On several occasions, US soldiers acted on orders to fire at Iraqi=20
>ambulances, killing or wounding their occupants.11 They shot at the=20
>medical crews which came to retrieve the dead and wounded at the=20
>demonstration in Fallujah.12 The Geneva Conventions suggest that these are=
=20
>straightforward war crimes: "medical units and transports shall be=20
>respected and protected at all times and shall not be the object of=
attack."13
>
>The armed forces of the United States, in other words, appear to have=20
>taken short cuts while prosecuting their war with Iraq. Some of these may=
=20
>have permitted them to conclude their war more swiftly, but at the expense=
=20
>of the civilian population. Repeatedly, in some cases systematically, US=20
>soldiers appear to have broken the laws of war.
>
>We should not be surprised to learn that the US government has responded=20
>to the suit with outrage. The State Department has warned Belgium that it=
=20
>will punish nations which permit their laws to be used for "political=20
>ends". The Belgian government hasn't waited to discover what this means.=20
>It has amended the law and denounced the lawyer who filed the case.
>
>The Bush government's response would doubtless be explained by its=20
>apologists as a measure of its insistence upon and respect for national=20
>sovereignty. But while the US forbids other nations to proscribe the=20
>actions of its citizens, it also insists that its own laws should apply=20
>abroad. The Foreign Sovereignty Immunities Act, for example, permits the=20
>US courts to prosecute foreigners for harming commercial interests in the=
=20
>United States, even if they are breaking no laws within their own=20
>countries. The Helms-Burton Act allows the courts in America to confiscate=
=20
>the property of foreign companies which do business with Cuba. The=20
>Iran-Libya Sanctions Act instructs the government to punish foreign firms=
=20
>investing in the oil or gas sectors in those countries. The message these=
=20
>laws send is this: you can't prosecute us, but we can prosecute you.
>
>Of course, the sensible means of resolving legal disputes between nations=
=20
>is the use of impartial, multinational tribunals, such as the=20
>international criminal court in the Hague. But impartial legislation is=20
>precisely what the US government will not contemplate. When the ICC treaty=
=20
>was being negotiated, the United States demanded that its troops should be=
=20
>exempt from prosecution, and the UN Security Council gave it what it=20
>wanted. The US also helped to ensure that the court's writ runs only in=20
>the nations which have ratified the treaty. Its soldiers in Iraq would=20
>thus have been exempt in any case, as Saddam Hussein's government was one=
=20
>of seven which voted against the formation of the court in 1998. The=20
>others were China, Israel, Libya, Qatar, Yemen and the United States.19=20
>This is the company the American government keeps when it comes to=20
>international law.
>
>To ensure that there was not the slightest possibility that his servicemen=
=20
>need fear the rule of law, last year George Bush signed a new piece of=20
>extra-territorial legislation, which permits the US "to use all means=20
>necessary and appropriate to bring about the release" of US citizens being=
=20
>tried in the court.14 This appears to include the invasion of the capital=
=20
>of the Netherlands.
>
>All this serves to illustrate the grand mistake Tony Blair is making. The=
=20
>empire he claims to influence entertains no interest in his moral=20
>posturing. Its vision of justice between nations is the judicial oubliette=
=20
>of Guantanamo Bay. The idea that it might be subject to the international=
=20
>rule of law, and therefore belong to a world order in which other nations=
=20
>can participate, is as unthinkable in Washington as a six-month public=20
>holiday. If Blair does not understand this, he has missed the entire point=
=20
>of US foreign policy. If he does understand it, he has misled us as to the=
=20
>purpose of his own diplomacy. The US government does not respect the law=20
>between nations. It is the law.
>
>
>
>References: 1. The Facts Files on this case can be viewed at=20
>http://belgium.indymedia.org/news/2003/05/63322.php Most of the sources=20
>referenced here are cited on this page.
>
>2. ibid
>
>3. http://www.iraqbodycount.net/editorial.htm
>
>4. Article 4, Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August=20
>1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed=
=20
>Conflicts (Protocol II), 8 June 1977.
>
>5. Mark Franchetti, 30th March 2003. US Marines Turn Fire on Civilians at=
=20
>the Bridge of Death. The Times.
>
>6. Michel Guerrin, 13th April 2003. J'ai vu des marines am=E9ricains tuer=
=20
>des civils. Le Monde. 7. Eg Associated Press, 29th April 2003. U.S.=20
>soldiers fire on Iraqi protesters; hospital chief says 13 Iraqis are dead.
>
>8. Article 14, Protocol II, ibid
>
>9. Article 56, Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian=20
>Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
>
>10. Brian Whitaker, 12th April 2003. Free to do bad things. The Guardian.
>
>11. eg AFP, 10th April 2003. US troops fire on ambulance, two killed.
>
>12. eg Associated Press, 29th April 2003. U.S. soldiers fire on Iraqi=20
>protesters; hospital chief says 13 Iraqis are dead.
>
>13. Article 11, Protocol II, ibid.
>
>14. Section 2008, The American Servicemembers' Protection Act, 2002