Does the bombing campaign in Iraq violate the Geneva Convention?

[bigtree]

"The United Nations and my country share the deepest commitments. Both the American Declaration of Independence and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaim the equal value and dignity of every human life. That dignity is honored by the rule of law, limits on the power of the state, respect for women, protection of private property, free speech, equal justice, and religious tolerance. That dignity is dishonored by oppression, corruption, tyranny, bigotry, terrorism and all violence against the innocent. And both of our founding documents affirm that this bright line between justice and injustice -- between right and wrong -- is the same in every age, and every culture, and every nation."

September 21, 2004
President Bush Speaks to the United Nations General Assembly


Fine rhetoric, but did the president violate the rule of international law in his bombing, invasion, and occupation of Iraq? More importantly, is President Bush continuing to violate the international rule of law in his unceasing bombing campaign targeting Iraqi towns in pursuit of 'insurgents'?

Today U.S. aircrafts and tanks attacked what they described as rebel positions killing at least 10 people and injuring 92 others, hospital officials said. U.S. military strikes in Fallujah killed two people and wounded three Monday.

Since the president has declared Iraq free and sovereign we deserve a full accounting of their campaign against what they describe as 'rebel targets', but which are unmistakably directed to strike in the heart of civilian areas of Iraq. How does the U.S. distinguish between military and civilian targets as it indiscriminately bombs these areas? Has the U.S. military made any effort at all to determine whether their strikes have actually killed any 'rebels' and how do they justify the certain loss of civilian lives in the campaign and the maiming of others?

These actions would seem to be in direct violation of Articles 51 and 57 of the Geneva Convention. Are war crimes being committed by this president in Iraq?


Protocol 1
Additional to the Geneva Conventions, 1977

http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-proto.htm

PART IV: CIVILIAN POPULATION
Section 1: General Protection Against Effects of Hostilities

Article 51: Protection of the Civilian Population

1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.

2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.

3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.

4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:

a. those which are not directed at a specific military objective;

b. those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or

c. those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.

5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:

a. an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as
a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and

b. an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

6. Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited.

7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favor or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.

8. Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57. (http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-proto.htm#a57)

Article 57: Precautions in Attack

1. In the conduct of military operations, constant care shall be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects.

2. With respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken:

a. those who plan or decide upon an attack shall:

i. do everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be attacked are neither civilians nor civilian objects and are not subject to special protection but are military objectives within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 52 and that it is not prohibited by the provisions of this Protocol to attack them;

ii. take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of attack with a view to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects;

iii. refrain from deciding to launch any attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;

b. an attack shall be canceled or suspended if it becomes apparent that the objective is not a military one or is subject to special protection or that the attack may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;

c. effective advance warning shall be given of attacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not pemmit.

3. When a choice is possible between several military objectives for obtaining a similar military advantage, the objective to be selected shall be that the attack on which may be expected to cause the least danger to civilian lives and to civilian objects.

4. In the conduct of military operations at sea or in the air, each Party to the conflict shall, in conformity with its rights and duties under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, take all reasonable precautions to avoid losses of civilian lives and damage to civilian objects

5. No provision of this article may be construed as authorizing any attacks against the civilian population, civilians or civilian objects.

[malatesta1137]

1. thank you for posting this

but of course the CIA was just 'guessing' the Iraqis hated ours freedoms, so who cares about the Geneva Convention?

[HysteryDiagnosis]

2. I would think so.... and the following people probably think so...

www.brusselstribunal.org
Questioning the New Imperial World Order
A Hearing on the Project for the New American Century ( PNAC)


>>The BRussells Tribunal is a hearing committee composed of academics, intellectuals and artists in the tradition of the Russell Tribunal, set up in 1967 to investigate war crimes committed during the Vietnam War. The hearing is scheduled for 14-17th April 2004 at The Beursschouwburg and Les Halles in Brussels. It will be presided by Professor François Houtart, one of the founding fathers of the World Social Forum in Porto Allegre.

It is directed against the war in Iraq and the Imperial war policies of the Bush II administration. Its main focus will be the ‘Project for the New American Century’, the think tank behind this war, in particular three of the co-signatories of the mission statement: Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, as they are the physical link between the discourse and the brutal practice of the New Imperial World Order as designed by PNAC. Read more...<<

[bigtree]

3. This is interesting

Thank you for the info. What do you think?

[HysteryDiagnosis]

4. What do you think?

I think that if the rest of the civilized world had its way... shrub and cheney and wolfowitz and perle and many others would be in sing sing and the key would be tossed into the ocean.

I'm so mad it's hard for me to think.... supposedly I said supposedly intelligent men creating all this mess for money.... and nothing more.

I'll bet it felt real good for cheney to cut France, Germany and Russia out of the contracts and debts they had with Iraq.... like John said... they will have their own special place.

[bigtree]

5. I think other nations have been cowed into silence

because they feel they may be the next victims of Bush's imperialistic expansionism. Our nation's actions in Iraq have far exceeded the dreams of those who would exploit that region for their greed and pursuit of power, in and out of the U.S.. We have set a new low in accountability. Bush has set up an oligarchy where we make our own rules as we go to fit whatever colonialist ambition he and his cabal can dream up. It's clear that it is our responsibility to stop him. The world, and I think even God, if you believe there is a God, holds US accountable along with Bush for our bloody arrogance. We had better act this November to bring this demagouge down and try to rebuild some credibility in the world for our culpable nation.

[merh]

6. The entire Iraqi campaign is illegal and our leaders are war

criminals. If we do not defeat * in November, I fear what the international community will do to "control" the evil admin. Right now the American people are seen as hostages to the admin that stole the election and are considered the victims. If we do not dethrone the weed that would be king, we will no longer be seen as victims, but as accomplishes and will be held just as responsible as the admin.

Other nations will continue to develop their nuclear arms and will continue to fortify their military until such time as we change the regime at home. Who can blame them, the world sees the pattern we see, that * & co will continue attacking, invading and occupying nations until they have total control and to keep the world in a constant state of war.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

7. keep the world in a constant state of war.<< They would have you believe

war is peace.... war is peace.... war is peace...

[merh]

8. You know, as long as they are fighting over there, they will

never be fighting and killing here (that is what * supporters believe). War is money, war over there protects me here, war is peace, the WAR PRESIDENT!