MATTHEWGOODONLINE

It’s as if it were simply publication errata, not the admission that innocent people had been killed – never mind the blatant lies involved…

“The U.S. military said Sunday that the three people killed last month after U.S. soldiers shot at their car in one of the most secured areas of Iraq were civilians, not criminals as the military initially reported.

The correction came more than a month after a bank manager at a branch inside the airport, Hafeth Aboud Mahdi, and two female bank employees were shot at by U.S. soldiers as they sped to work on a road within the secured airport compound. The road is used only by people with high-level security clearance badges. The car veered off the road, hit a concrete blast wall and burst into flames.

The original statement said that Mahdi and the two women were “criminals” and that an American convoy on the side of the secured road came under small-arms fire from the vehicle. Soldiers said they shot back. A weapon was found in the debris and two U.S. military vehicles were struck by bullets from the attack, the statement on June 25 said.

“When we are attacked, we will defend ourselves and will use deadly force if necessary,” Maj. Joey Sullinger, a spokesman for 4th Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, said in a statement at the time. “Such attacks endanger not only U.S. soldiers but also innocent civilians, including women and children, traveling the roadways of Baghdad.”

On Sunday the story changed and the tone was apologetic. A military statement said that neither the civilians who were killed nor the soldiers were at fault for the deaths. An investigation found that “the driver and passengers were law-abiding citizens of Iraq.”

Soldiers had pulled off the road because one of the vehicles in the convoy was having maintenance problems. As they worked on the vehicle they saw Mahdi’s car and thought it was moving too quickly toward them, the statement said. Believing they might be in danger, the soldiers warned the car. When the driver ignored the signals they shot at the vehicle, the statement said.

The alleged attack and the weapon that was said to have been recovered from the burned vehicle were misunderstandings, the statement said.”

So the individuals in the car did not fire on the US convoy and, according to new versions of the event, the ‘weapon’ recovered was a ‘misunderstanding’.

Translated for the layman: No shots were fired by those in the car, those that fired on the car, after discovering their mistake, probably plugged a few rounds from an AK into one of their vehicles and then threw the weapon into the wreckage to make it appear as though they had come under fire to cover their asses.

Sound about right?

I should write about musical genres more often. Perhaps it will eventually come to blows. Not sure I’d be against that, I’ve been a little bored.

Knock yourselves around a bit, pit the DJ against the guitar player, thin the herd. I’m actually a fan of a lot of electronic music. Mind you, most of it was made in the 70’s, but nonetheless. I mean, it doesn’t get much better than Here Come The Warm Jets now does it.

They caught Karadzic. He’s sporting the Saddam Hussein spider hole look. He was captured in Belgrade where he’s been practicing ‘alternative medicine’.

Sounds about right.

I didn’t write anything yesterday because I was otherwise engaged. A little demoing, a little designing, had the Livesey’s over for dinner.

There’s plenty of nonsense transpiring at this very moment between the poles. Countless journalists are reporting on it. Hit the Google and see what’s up. This monkey’s got some finger drums to play.

Jean-Pierre Bemba, the ex-Vice President of the DR Congo, has been extradited to The Hague to face war crime charges. While a rebel leader in 2002, forces under Bemba’s command have been accused of committing atrocities, an accusation that Bemba naturally denies.

The likes of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and a cast of others will not share Bemba’s fate. The reason? Because the United States opted out of the ICC after 9/11 and because high level American officials, even ones that are no longer in office, never have to answer for their actions as they pertain to war crimes. Major world powers never do.

Prosecuting the little fish for their actions is one thing, and certainly keeps many believing that justice is something that has not altogether vanished. But the reality remains that those responsible for widespread crimes, such as the illegal invasion of nations based on fallacies and the subsequent loss of life produced, are not held accountable if they are undertaken by major world powers. The reason for that is, of course, quite simple – who has the power to bring them to justice?

The answer is, unfortunately, no one.

The United States is, according to the United States, a beacon of global freedom, of equality, and the protection of human rights. Of course, their implementation of such values when it comes to their deliverance at then end of a rifle is entirely hypocritical. They can point to others and claim that human rights abuses must not be tolerated while, at the same time, completely disregard international law, the Geneva Conventions, and the Universal Declaration by indefinitely detaining individuals – not to mention creating a global network of secret facilities at which to employ torture to interrogate them. They can claim that they are a beacon of global freedom, but the fact remains that the freedom they strive to deliver others is one wholly steeped in their own best interests.

Of course, the United States is not alone when it comes to such hypocrisy. Every member of the United Nations Security Council is a global military enabler, as they constitute the most prolific arms manufacturers and retailers in the world. Ironically, when it comes to making UN sanctioned decisions as to who will and won’t be punished for transgressions, be they real or simply the result of foreign policy agendas, the same five nations represent the world’s most influential voices.

Bemba will face justice. But despite his transgressions, he is merely a little fish in a much larger ocean, onE in which sharks always have the final say.

Yesterday, after literally millennia of its use as a ‘war tactic’, the United Nations Security Council voted unanimously to finally classify rape as a ‘weapon of war’. In this day and age rape is primarily employed as a terror tactic, and has, as such, been in direct contravention of the UN Declaration Of Human Rights since its inception. Of course, those that employ rape as a tactic don’t commonly adhere to the tenets of the UNDHR, so it’s somewhat of a moot point.

Women and boys have suffered the wrath of rape at the hands of armies and raiders since the human race first discovered that the horrors of conflict could be refined. In centuries past rape has been used as an incentive with regards to placating the base common urges of fighting men pressed into service. It was regarded by many as a spoil of war, one enjoyed by everyone from Roman Legionaries to Christian crusaders to British Redcoats. Along with the personal and monetary plunder of those conquered or defeated, rape was a commonly included spoil of war enjoyed by soldiers in the aftermath of battle, the age of the victim usually being of little concern.

Throughout history, conquests that involved mass enslavement and rape have also led to the significant alteration of the cultural and racial compositions of societies. The Moors in Southern Spain, the Romans in Gaul and Britain, the Turks throughout the Balkans, and the Spanish and Portuguese throughout Latin America (just to name a few). Not only were the religious and cultural aspects of the conquering power infused into such societies, but those that occupied or settled such lands also contributed to the thinning of the racial purity of their indigenous peoples. In some instances, the racial transformation of societies was a stated goal of the occupying power.

Rape as a weapon is nothing new. In fact, it is one of the oldest byproducts of conflict. That it has taken this long for the United Nations to actually condemn it as a ‘war tactic’ seems odd to me. One wonders if the action was taken to draw attention to the fact that it is something that has, for example, been brutally employed by the likes of the Janjiweed in Darfur, or because it is a truly universal problem – one that has even reared its ugly head in Iraq at Abu Ghraib, Mahmoudiya, and elsewhere. It has reared its ugly head in Afghanistan as well, with Canadian Forces even being told to mind their own business if they happen to see Afghan troops engaged in it.

In the end, and no matter the period of history, women have always paid a very hefty price in defeat. While they have rarely taken to the field, the field has always been able to find them no matter.

When it comes to war crimes, especially those committed under heightened emotional circumstances, it is utterly impossible for the military of a nation that refuses to adhere to the authority of the International Criminal Court to try their own. But that is precisely what has happened with regards to the Marines involved in the massacre in Haditha in 2005.

As of yesterday, all but two Marines have been cleared of all charges against them concerning the incident. Some point to that as vindication. I, on the other hand, do not, especially given the fact that numerous Iraqi witnesses weren’t even heard from. Why would they be? After all, they’re not ‘credible’ – they’re Iraqis.

You see; you can set a country ‘free’, but viewing its citizens as anything but beneath you is simply out of the question.

So, yesterday, Lt Andrew Grayson, who had been charged with obstruction of justice and making false statements in the aftermath of the incident, walked. The crowd in attendance at the trial at Camp Pendleton cheered when the verdict of Grayson’s acquittal was read. One probably can’t say the same for those in Haditha whose voices weren’t even heard.

For many, what occurred that day is most likely nothing more than a vague media memory now. Since I started writing about the incident several Marines have contacted me and admonished me for my views, claiming that the acquittal of those involved proves that no wrongdoing occurred. My response is always the same – those innocents that died that day will see no justice, nor will the testimonies of those Iraqis that witnessed what happened ever be taken seriously. Given that, how can true justice prevail?

The rule of law? What rule of law? The United States military, and those contractors in the employ of the Pentagon and State Department, have absolutely no right to even utter that phrase when they, themselves, cannot be held accountable for their actions under Iraqi law. The United States has not brought the rule of law to Iraq; it has brought nothing more than hypocritical contradiction.

It comes down to a simple position – do you believe that the Marine Corps can try its own impartially given the already inflammatory state of the war with regards to US domestic perceptions?

My answer? Absolutely not.

On this side of the ocean the incident has been largely forgotten. As for what Iraqis think, what does that ultimately matter? The United States hasn’t taken the disposition of the Iraqi people seriously for some time now, if ever. The Pentagon does not, nor have they ever, even attempted to keep a record of Iraqi civilian casualties. For all intents and purposes they got away with Abu Ghraib. Blackwater, shielded by the protections of the State Department, got away with the Nisour Square massacre. And God knows how many other criminal events have gone unchecked since 2003?

Sure, there have been a few incidents that have led to serious repercussions, such as the rape and murder of a 14 year old girl and her family in 2006 in Mahmoudiya. Due to the extreme nature of that incident, it being the premeditated rape of a minor, severe punishments were handed out. But the same cannot be said of the rapes that took place at Abu Ghraib, nor have those that have first hand knowledge of them ever been taken seriously.

You can throw a few soldiers to the wolves here and there in an attempt to achieve the perception of judicial transparency, but the fact remains that the rule of law is not something that the United States is all that interested in as it applies to the conduct of its personnel in Iraq. In fact, they opted out of the ICC for that very reason.

British journalist George Monbiot comments on his failure at the Hey Festival to confront former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton. Monbiot begins…

“I realise now that I didn’t have a hope. I had almost reached the stage when two of the biggest gorillas I have ever seen swept me up and carried me out of the tent. It was humiliating, but it could have been worse. The guard on the other side of the stage, half hidden in the curtains, had spent the lecture touching something under his left armpit. Perhaps he had bubos.”

Read all of Justice Undone at Monbiot.com.

This evening (GMT), former US ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, will be speaking at the Hay Festival in Wales. After his speech, noted British journalist George Monbiot intends to place Mr. Bolton under citizens arrest for war crimes. From Monbiot’s blog…

“On Wednesday 28th May 2008, I will attempt a citizen’s arrest of John Robert Bolton, former Under-Secretary of State, US State Department, for the crime of aggression, as established by customary international law and described by Nuremberg Principles VI and VII.

These state the following:

“Principle VI
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

…

“Principle VII

Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.”

The evidence against him is as follows:

1. John Bolton orchestrated the sacking of the head of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), Jose Bustani. Bustani had offered to resolve the dispute over Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, and therefore to avert armed conflict. He had offered to seek to persuade Saddam Hussein to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention, which would mean that Iraq was then subject to weapons inspections by the OPCW. As the OPCW was not tainted by the CIA’s infiltration of UNSCOM, Bustani’s initiative had the potential to defuse the crisis over Saddam Hussein’s obstruction of UNMOVIC inspections.

Apparently in order to prevent the negotiated settlement that Bustani proposed, and as part of a common plan with other administration officials to prepare and initiate a war of aggression, in violation of international treaties, Mr Bolton acted as follows:

In March 2002 his office produced a ‘White Paper’ claiming that the OPCW was seeking an “inappropriate role” in Iraq.

On 20th March 2002 he met Bustani at the Hague to seek his resignation. Bustani refused to resign.

On 21st March 2002 he orchestrated a No-Confidence Motion calling for Bustani to resign as Director General which was introduced by the United States delegation. The motion failed.

On 22nd April 2002 the US called a special session of the conference of the States Parties and the Conference adopted the decision to terminate the appointment of the Director General effective immediately. Bolton had suggested that the US would withhold its dues from OPCW. The motion to sack Bustani was carried. Bustani asserts that this ‘special session’ was illegal, in breach of his contract and gave illegitimate grounds for his dismissal, stating a ‘lack of confidence’ in his leadership, without specific examples, and ignoring the failed No-Confidence vote.

In his book Surrender is Not an Option Mr Bolton describes his role in Bustani’s sacking (pages 95-98) and states the following:

“I directed that we begin explaining to others that the US contribution to the OPCW might well be cut if Bustani remained”.

“I met with Bustani to tell him he should resign … If he left now, we would do our best to give him ‘a gracious and dignified exit’. Otherwise we intended to have him fired”.

“I stepped in to tank the protocol, and then to tank Bustani”.

Bolton appears, in other words, to accept primary responsibility for Bustani’s dismissal.

Bustani appealed against the decision through the International Labour Organisation Tribunal. He was vindicated in his appeal and awarded his full salary and moral damages.

2. Mr Bolton helped to promote the false claim, through a State Department Fact Sheet, that Saddam Hussein had been seeking to procure uranium from Niger, as part of a common plan to prepare and initiate a war of aggression, in violation of international treaties.

The State Department Fact Sheet was released on the 19th December 2002 and was entitled ‘Illustrative Examples of Omissions From the Iraqi Declaration to the United States Security Council’ . Under the heading ‘Nuclear Weapons’ the fact sheet stated –

“The Declaration ignores efforts to procure uranium from Niger.
Why is the Iraqi regime hiding their uranium procurement?”

In a US Department of State press briefing on July 14th 2003 the spokesman Richard Boucher said “The accusation that turned out to be based on fraudulent evidence is that Niger sold uranium to Iraq” .

Bolton’s involvement in the use of fraudulent evidence is documented in Rep. Henry Waxman’s letter to Christopher Shays on the 1st March 2005. Waxman says “In April 2004, the State Department used the designation ‘sensitive but unclassified’ to conceal unclassified information about the role of John Bolton, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control, in the creation of a fact sheet distributed to the United Nations that falsely claimed that Iraq sought uranium from Niger”.

“Both State Department intelligence officials and CIA officials reported that they had rejected the claims as unreliable. As a result, it was unclear who within the State Department was involved in preparing the fact sheet”.

Waxman requested a chronology of how the Fact Sheet was developed. His letter states –

“This chronology described a meeting on December 18,2002, between Secretary Powell, Mr. Bolton, and Richard Boucher, the Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Public Affairs. According to this chronology, Mr. Boucher specifically asked Mr. Bolton ‘for help developing a response to Iraq’s Dec 7 Declaration to the United Nations Security Council that could be used with the press.’ According to the chronology, which is phrased in the present tense, Mr. Bolton ‘agrees and tasks the Bureau of Nonproliferation,’ a subordinate office that reports directly to Mr. Bolton, to conduct the work.

“This unclassified chronology also stated that on the next day, December 19, 2003, the Bureau of Nonproliferation “sends email with the fact sheet, ‘Fact Sheet Iraq Declaration.doc,’” to Mr. Bolton’s office (emphasis in original). A second e-mail was sent a few minutes later, and a third e-mail was sent about an hour after that. According to the chronology, each version ‘still includes Niger reference.’ Although Mr. Bolton may not have personally drafted the document, the chronology appears to indicate that he ordered its creation and received updates on its development.”

Both these actions were designed to assist in the planning of a war of aggression. The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg ruled that “to initiate a war of aggression … is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime”.

What can you expect from American politicians when you’re addressing them as an individual that was held captive at Guantanamo for almost five years of your life despite the fact that you did nothing wrong and were eventually released without charge?

Very little.

First, you can expect less than half a dozen of those that sit on the House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs to actually show up to hear you speak. Second, you can be assured that most of them won’t even be able to remember your name, addressing you as “Mr. Karzai” rather than “Mr. Kurnaz”. Third, after you’ve addressed them, even if it is via video conference, you can expect the first response to your horrific detailing of what occurred while you were in US custody to read a little something like this…

“The first to speak after Kurnaz was finished was ranking member on the committee, Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, who expressed doubts about the testimony and recalled that the United States was “at war” and needed to protect itself even at the price of making some errors.”

That’s what you get after almost five years of unlawful and wrongful detention. Basically a shrug of the shoulders.

One wonders if Rohrabacher has read the newly released FBI report which details some of the practices used at Guantanamo and the objections to them made by various FBI agents to their superiors? And if he has, one wonders if he even cares.

Despite the fact that it’s being investigated for the conduct of its employees, specifically regarding the Nisour Square massacre in which 17 Iraqi civilians were killed, and tax violations, the US State Department has extended Blackwater USA’s contract in Iraq for another year.

If that’s not enough to enrage your average American, perhaps the fact that, according to a Congressional estimate, Blackwater has received some $1.25 billion dollars in federal contracts since 2000 is. That is, if the average American even hears about it.

Blackwater is, for all intents and purposes, the State Department’s de facto military arm in Iraq. Like all US personnel in Iraq, Blackwater employees enjoy legal immunity and cannot be held or tried by Iraqi authorities in conjunction with crimes perpetrated against Iraqis in their own country. Despite a host of first hand accounts provided by witnesses regarding the Nisour Square massacre that completely contradict Blackwater’s versions of events that day, the company has not seriously been held accountable for what occurred. In fact, Iraqi demands that the company be removed from the country altogether have been completely ignored.

The hypocrisy is overwhelming when one looks at past precedents regarding war crimes that the United States has itself prosecuted. In the five years that the United States has occupied Iraq, not one single instance of criminality has been legally treated as a war crime. Murder, rape, and abuse – yes. But none of them have ever been termed war crimes, including what transpired at Abu Ghraib. That’s what happens when you have the luxury of investigating your own and deny the nation in which such crimes are committed any legal recourse whatsoever.

To get away with murder in a war zone you have to have a few things going for you. For example…

1) No international body has the power to independently investigate allegations of war crimes, nor prosecute those found guilty under international law.

3) Only the internal judicial infrastructure of the body to which the accused belongs possesses the right to prosecute based on their findings alone.

That is how just powers get away with murder – by ensuring that when it comes to the possibility of negative attention due to criminality they retain the right to investigate themselves to ensure satisfactory outcomes, or at least those that placate domestic despondency, as domestic perceptions far outweigh other considerations. Winning hearts and minds in Iraq is by no means as important as, for example, punishing a few ‘bad apples’ involved at the lowest level of the Abu Ghraib scandal to placate the American public’s superior sense of morality. Even with a 30% approval rating, a democracy can continue to justify a military action simply because the buffer created by that 30% often means that the silent majority of the remaining 70% never really voice their dissatisfaction. That’s precisely how unpopular, costly, and wholly ludicrous wars endure in the face of seemingly overwhelming domestic disapproval. Added to that is the bizarre inability of so many to be able to grasp the difference between policy and support for those sent to enact it – who are always overwhelmingly represented by the nation’s poorest. Once upper middle class kids start coming home in metal boxes the acceleration of dissent becomes glaringly apparent, a phenomenon that was sadly crucial in helping turn public support against US involvement in Vietnam.

Some months ago I was emailed and provided a link to a story regarding the Haditha massacre. The email went on to ask if, given the contents of that story - which was that some of those involved that day had been cleared of wrong doing - would I be writing a retraction given my initial response to the event. My answer to that question remains the same. Until those Marines are tried in an Iraqi court of law, which was good enough for Saddam Hussein and his henchmen in the eyes of the American people and the current administration, or tried by the ICC, then no, I will not write a retraction. Because when wolves are allowed to investigate other wolves there is no security in the rule of law. Especially when the eyewitness reports of Iraqi civilians are treated as dubious or bias, once again reinforcing an engrained sense of Western moral superiority.

In truth, we will never know the full extent of US and British transgressions in Iraq. That reality was preordained prior to the invasion, a precedent that ensured that the Western public would only ever be presented with a one sided reality.