Showing posts with label Geneva conventions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Geneva conventions. Show all posts

Sunday, October 18, 2015

US bombing of Kunduz hospital in Afghanistan may have been a war crime

The Nobel Peace Prize-winning group Doctors Without Borders (MSF) sent letters to 76 countries that have signed Article 90 of an additional protocol to the Geneva Conventions.
 
The Conventions set out rules for conducting armed conflict including rules meant to protect non-combatants. MSF believes the attack on its hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan may have been a war crime. The attack killed at least 22 people. Among those killed were 12 MSF staff and 10 patients. Thirty-three people are still unaccounted for.
The U.S. military, the Afghans, and NATO are already planning investigations into the incident that the US now calls a mistake. Obama called MSF president Joanne Liu and apologized for the attack. Liu however sees an independent investigation as necessary especially since there have been inconsistencies between US and Afghan accounts in recent days. Liu said: ”We cannot rely on only internal military investigations by the U.S., NATO and Afghan forces." The MSF sent a letter to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon about their demand. Stephane Dujarric a spokesperson for the UN said that ban is "always in favor of accountability, and he looks forward to a transparent and impartial investigation of what happened in the hospital in Kunduz". Note that the reply says nothing about who should be investigating.
The MSF demanded that the 15 member International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission based in Bern Switzerland carry out the investigation. The Commission is made up of diplomats, legal experts, doctors, and some former military officers from nine EU countries. It was created after the Gulf War in 1991 but has never been deployed on a fact-finding mission. Liu complained that the attack in Kunduz was not just an attack on their hospital and a possible war crime but an attack on the Geneva Conventions that cannot be tolerated. The attack has completely shattered the humanitarian aid response team in Kunduz, with MSF and other aid groups suspending operations in the area. The hospital was the primary medical facility in the entire region.
Only a single country need call for the Commission to be mobilized. However, both the U.S. and Afghanistan would need to agree to the investigation. Neither Afghanistan nor the U.S. have signed on to this article of the Conventions. MSF has not yet heard from any country.
The MSF demand did receive support from the top commander of NATO:Philip Breedlove, NATO Supreme Commander and four-star US Air Force General, told Deutsche Welle that he supports the investigation called for by Doctors Without Borders, through the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission (IHFFC).
The directory of international law and policy at the International Committee of the Red Cross also supported the MSF, claiming that the IHFFC investigation would complement those of the Afghans, NATO and the US. No doubt some military authorities are probably as astonished at what happened as others and would like to know how it could happen. So far US authorities have said they do not believe an international investigation is needed. But even one of their top generals thinks otherwise.
The circumstances of the attack make the official US view that it was a mistake difficult to believe. The location of the hospital had been made clear to both Afghans and Americans. Hospital officials also noted:
The U.S. military aircraft that attacked an Afghan hospital over the weekend made at least five passes over it dropping explosives, even though two flags draped across the roof of the building marked it as a medical facility, hospital officials said on Thursday.The staff noted the hospital was the only structure hit in the attack. They denied that the Taliban were using the hospital as a base at the time or that there were any armed Taliban fighters in the hospital. The building that was attacked contained emergency rooms, an intensive-care unit, blood lab, and X-ray room plus an outpatient waiting room. No other buildings on the hospital grounds were attacked. The attack began just after 2:00 in the morning and lasted almost an hour even though MSF frantically contacted authorities to inform them the hospital was under attack.
It seems clear that the intention was to attack the building that was hit, even though it was known that it was a hospital. Perhaps, the attack was based upon some intelligence about hi-value targets being in the hospital, or that it was being used as a base by the Taliban. Even if this had been true it would not justify the attack. The U.S. story changed. At first those killed were collateral damage in an attack called in to protect troops being fired upon from the hospital or nearby as discussed on the appended video. As often happens, the story had to be altered as new evidence of what happened emerged.


Wednesday, July 8, 2015

Pentagon rule book claims journalists can be legitimate targets

A new Pentagon rule book on the "laws of war" detailing legitimate warfare practices, as approved by the U.S. military, claims that journalists may be legitimate targets.
+ Add Image 1 of 2 
According to the new rule book:Now, the American 1,176-page “Department of Defense Law of War Manual” says that it is perfectly legitimate to shoot, explode, bomb, stab, or cut journalists they deem “belligerent". They seem to want to make sure they cover all the ways they will kill enemy reporters. They clarify that poison and asphyxiating gases are still no-nos that will not be employed in the war against journalists.
While still allowing that in general journalists are civilians, the rule book also says that journalists may be members of the armed forces, persons authorized to accompany the armed forces, or unprivileged belligerents.
The term "unprivileged belligerent" is not defined. The account given in Wikipedia would not seem to allow journalists as unprivileged belligerents: An unlawful combatant, illegal combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent is a combatant who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of the laws of war. An unlawful combatant may be detained or prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action; subject of course to international treaties on justice and human rights.[1]Journalists would not be engaged in armed conflict at all in most situations.
Chris Chambers, a journalism professor at Georgetown university said that he did not know what "unprivileged belligerents" means and said “the Geneva Convention, other tenets of international law, and even United States law – federal courts have spoken on this – doesn’t have this thing on ‘unprivileged belligerents’.It gives them license to attack or even murder journalists that they don’t particularly like but aren’t on the other side.” Chambers notes that as the law is now even embedded journalists are regarded as protected under international law. There is no clarification of when a journalist could be an unprivileged belligerent.
The new law could be considered simply a codification of past practice. Journalists have often been targeted it appears not because they were on the "other side" but because they were critical of the side that targets them. In the early days of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Bush-Cheney administration considered bombing the main studio and office building of Al Jazeera in Qatar. While it was decided not to go ahead with the plan there was a rocket and machine gun attack on the Al Jazeera Baghdad bureau on April 8, 2002. The US claims the attack was "inadvertent" although Al Jazeera had given the US the coordinates of the site. Another attack by a tank firing an artillery shell on the Palestine hotel where almost the entire foreign press stayed killed a Reuters cameraman and a Spanish TV worker.
If the journalists work for the other side, present practice appears to provide them no protection at all. NATO attacked the Radio, Television, of Serbia(RTS) headquarters in Sarajevo. Sixteen employees of RTS died when a NATO missile hit the building. Amnesty International called the bombing a war crime while Noam Chomsky said it was an act of terrorism. However, many defended the attack:Tony Blair, in Washington for Nato's 50th anniversary summit, insisted that bombing television stations was 'entirely justified' since they were part of the 'apparatus of dictatorship and power of Milosevic'. He added: 'The responsibility for every single part of this action lies with the man who has engaged in this policy of ethnic cleansing and must be stopped.'
What is allowed for NATO and the US is surely legitimate for Israel. In an attack in Gaza, Israel fired several missiles directly at a building housing Al-Aksa TV station, but it also housed offices of a number of foreign journalists. Two Al-Aksa cameramen were killed in the strike. Israel admits targeting the journalists killed claiming that since they worked for the Hamas-owned stations they were terrorists.


Monday, June 1, 2009

Petraeus: US violated Geneva Conventions

Interesting that a general should admit this and in effect come to the defence of Obama on his banning of "enhanced interrogation techniques" or in non-Newspeak "torture". Petraeus seems to be arguing that the ban is good in that it gives the US a moral tool to defend the US on the international scene. I thought it should be banned because it was morally wrong.

- News From Antiwar.com - http://news.antiwar.com -
Petraeus: US Violated Geneva Conventions
Posted By Jason Ditz On May 29, 2009 @ 6:45 pm In Uncategorized 3 Comments
During an interview today with Fox News, CENTCOM commander General David Petraeus said the US government had been “rightly” criticized for violating the Geneva Convention in recent years. The general added that he thought going forward it was important for the US to live up to the agreements it made internationally.
Petraeus defended the ban on “enhanced interrogation techniques,” saying it had taken away a tool used as a moral argument against the US on the international scene. He insisted that while “there might be an exception” he felt that the Army Field Manual was “generally sufficient” for interrogations.
During the Bush Administration, officials repeatedly insisted that the protections of the Geneva Conventions did not apply to the detainees held by the US. Colonel Janis Karpinski admitted that the US had violated the conventions at Abu Ghraib, including by keeping “ghost detainees” hidden from the Red Cross.
The Geneva Conventions cover the treatment of prisoners of war. The US had previously argued that since the detainees were not members of formal armies of other nations, they were not technically prisoners of war, but were “enemy combatants” not subject to the same rights.
Find other News
Copyright © 2009 News From Antiwar.com. All rights reserved.

US will bank Tik Tok unless it sells off its US operations

  US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said during a CNBC interview that the Trump administration has decided that the Chinese internet app ...