On
19 March 2003 President Bush Jr. commenced his criminal war against Iraq
by ordering a so-called decapitation strike against the President of
Iraq in violation of a 48-hour ultimatum he had given publicly to the
Iraqi President and his sons to leave the country. This duplicitous
behavior violated the customary international laws of war set forth in
the 1907 Hague Convention on the Opening of Hostilities to which the
United States is still a contracting party, as evidenced by paragraphs
20, 21, 22, and 23 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956). Furthermore,
President Bush Jr.'s attempt to assassinate the President of Iraq was
an international crime in its own right. Of course the Bush Jr.
administration's war of aggression against Iraq constituted a Crime
against Peace as defined by the Nuremberg Charter (1945), the Nuremberg
Judgment (1946), and the Nuremberg Principles (1950) as well as by
paragraph 498 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956).
Next
came the Pentagon's military strategy of inflicting "shock and awe"
upon the city of Baghdad.
To the contrary, article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defined the
term "War crimes" to include: ". . .
wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not
justified by military necessity. . ." The Bush Jr. administration's
infliction of "shock and awe" upon Baghdad and its inhabitants
constituted the wanton destruction of that city, and it was certainly
not justified by "military necessity," which is always defined by and
includes the laws of war. Such terror bombings of cities have been
criminal behavior under international law since before the Second World
War: Nagasaki, Hiroshima,
Tokyo, Dresden,
London, Guernica.
On
1 May 2003 President Bush Jr. theatrically landed on a U.S. aircraft carrier off the coast of San Diego to declare: "Major combat operations in
Iraq
have ended." He spoke before a large banner proclaiming: "MISSION
ACCOMPLISHED." As of that
date, the United States
government became the belligerent occupant of Iraq under international
law and practice.
This legal status was formally recognized by U.N. Security
Council Resolution 1483 of 22 May 2003. For the purpose of this
analysis here, the relevant portions of that Security Council
Resolution 1483 (2003) are as follows:
. . . .
Noting the letter of 8 May 2003 from the Permanent
Representatives of the United States of America and the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the President of the Security
Council (S/2003/538) and recognizing the specific authorities,
responsibilities, and obligations under applicable international law of
these states as occupying powers under unified command (the
"Authority"),
.
. . .
5. Calls upon all concerned to comply fully with their
obligations under international law including in particular the Geneva
Conventions of 1949 and the Hague Regulations of 1907; . . .
In that aforementioned 8 May 2003 letter from the United States
and the United Kingdom to the President of the Security Council, both
countries pledged to the Security Council that: "The States
participating in the Coalition will strictly abide by their obligations
under international law, including those relating to the essential
humanitarian needs of the people of Iraq." No point would be served
here by attempting to document the gross and repeated violations of
that solemn and legally binding pledge by the United States and the
United Kingdom from that date until today since it would require a
separate book to catalog all of the war crimes, crimes against
humanity, and grave human rights violations inflicted by the United
States and the United Kingdom in Iraq and against its people. Suffice it to say here that no earlier than
President Bush's 1 May 2003 Declaration of the end of hostilities in
Iraq, and certainly no later than U.N. Security Resolution 1483 of 22
May 2003, both the United States and the United Kingdom have been the
belligerent occupants of Iraq subject to the Four Geneva Conventions of
1949, the 1907 Hague Regulations on land warfare, U.S. Army Field
Manual 27-10 (1956) or respectively its British equivalent, the
humanitarian provisions of Additional Protocol One of 1977 to the Four
Geneva Conventions of 1949, and the customary international laws of
war.
I do
not take the position that the United
States is the belligerent occupant of the entire
state of Afghanistan.
But certainly the laws of war and international humanitarian law apply
to the United States
in its conduct of hostilities in Afghanistan as well as to
its presence there. It is not generally believed
that the United States
is the belligerent occupant of Guantanamo,
Cuba.
But those detainees held there by United
States armed forces who were apprehended in or
near the theaters of hostilities in Afghanistan
and Iraq
are protected by either the Third Geneva Convention protecting
prisoners of war or the Fourth Geneva Convention protecting civilians.
In any event every detainee held by the United
States government in Guantanamo
is protected by the International Covenant on a Civil and Political
Rights, to which the United
States is a contracting party. A
similar analysis likewise applies pari passu to those
numerous but unknown torture and detention facilities operated around
the world by the Central Intelligence Agency. America's own "Gulag Archipelago." No wonder the Bush Jr.
administration has done everything humanly possible to sabotage the
International Criminal Court!
The United
States government's installation of
the so-called Interim Government of Iraq during the summer of 2004 did
not materially alter this legal situation. Under the laws of war, this
so-called Interim Government of Iraq is nothing more than a "puppet
government." As the belligerent occupant of Iraq the United States government is
free to establish a puppet government if it so desires. But under the
laws of war, the United
States government remains fully
accountable for the behavior of its puppet government.
These
conclusions are made quite clear by paragraph 366 of U.S. Army Field
Manual 27-10 (1956):
366.
Local Governments Under Duress and Puppet Governments
The
restrictions placed upon the authority of a belligerent government
cannot be avoided by a system of using a puppet government, central or
local, to carry out acts which would be unlawful if performed directly
by the occupant. Acts induced or compelled by the occupant are
nonetheless its acts.
As the belligerent occupant of Iraq, the United States
government is obligated to ensure that its puppet Interim Government of
Iraq obeys the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949, the 1907 Hague
Regulations on land warfare, U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956), the
humanitarian provisions of Additional Protocol One of 1977 to the Four
Geneva Conventions of 1949, and the customary international laws of
war. Any violation of the laws of war, international humanitarian law,
and human rights committed by its puppet Interim Government of Iraq are
legally imputable to the United States government.
As the belligerent occupant of Iraq, both the United States government
itself as well as its concerned civilian officials and military
officers are fully and personally responsible under international
criminal law for all violations of the laws of war, international
humanitarian law, and human rights committed by its puppet Interim
Government of Iraq such as, for example, reported death squads
operating under its auspicies.
Furthermore,
it was a total myth, fraud, lie, and outright propaganda for the Bush
Jr. administration to maintain that it was somehow magically
transferring "sovereignty" to its puppet Interim Government of Iraq
during the summer of 2004. Under the laws of war, sovereignty is never
transferred from the defeated sovereign such as Iraq to a belligerent occupant such as
the United States.
This is made quite clear by paragraph 353 of U.S. Army Field Manual
27-10 (1956): "Belligerent occupation in a foreign war, being based
upon the possession of enemy territory, necessarily implies that the
sovereignty of the occupied territory is not vested in the occupying
power. Occupation is essentially provisional."
If
there were any doubt about this matter, paragraph 358 of U.S. Army
Field Manual 27-10 (1956) makes this fact crystal clear:
358.
Occupation Does Not Transfer Sovereignty
Being an incident of war, military occupation confers upon the
invading force the means of exercising control for the period of
occupation. It does not transfer the sovereignty to the occupant, but
simply the authority or power to exercise some of the rights of
sovereignty. The exercise of these rights results from the established
power of the occupant and from the necessity of maintaining law and
order, indispensable both to the inhabitants and the occupying force. .
. .
Therefore, the United States government
never had any "sovereignty" in the first place to transfer to its
puppet Interim Government of Iraq. In Iraq
the sovereignty still resides in the hands of the people of Iraq and in the state known as the Republic of Iraq, where it has always been.
The legal regime described above will continue so long as the United States remains the belligerent
occupant of Iraq.
Only when that U.S. belligerent occupation of Iraq is factually
terminated can the people of Iraq have the opportunity to exercise
their international legal right of sovereignty by means of free, fair,
democratic, and uncoerced elections. So as of this writing, the United States and the United Kingdom remain the belligerent
occupants of Iraq
despite their bogus "transfer" of their non-existent "sovereignty" to
their puppet Interim Government of Iraq.
Even U.N. Security Council Resolution 1546 of 8 June 2004
"Welcoming" the installation of the puppet Interim Government of Iraq
recognized this undeniable fact of international law. Preambular
language in this Resolution referred to "the letter of 5 June 2004 from
the United States Secretary of State to the President of the Council,
which is annexed to this resolution." In other words, that annexed
letter is a legally binding part of Resolution 1546 (2004). Therein
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell pledged to the U.N. Security
Council with respect to the so-called Multinational Force (MNF) in Iraq:
"In addition, the forces that make up the MNF are and will remain
committed at all times to act consistently with their obligations under
the law of armed conflict, including the Geneva Conventions." Pursuant
thereto, the United States and the United Kingdom still remain the
belligerent occupants of Iraq subject to the Four Geneva Conventions of
1949, the Hague Regulations of 1907, U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10
(1956) or respectively its British equivalent, the humanitarian
provisions of Additional Protocol I of 1977 to the Four Geneva
Conventions of 1949, and the customary international laws of war.
This brings the analysis to the so-called Constitution of Iraq
that was allegedly drafted by the puppet Interim Government of Iraq
under the impetus of the United States government.
Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Regulations on land warfare flatly
prohibits the change in a basic law such as a state's Constitution
during the course of a belligerent occupation: "The authority of the
legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant,
the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and
ensure as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting,
unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country." This
exact same prohibition has been expressly incorporated in haec verba
into paragraph 363 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956). To the
contrary, the United States
has demonstrated gross disrespect toward every law in Iraq that has stood in the way of its
imperial designs and petroleum ambitions, including and especially the
pre-invasion 1990 Interim Constitution for the Republic of Iraq.
As for any subsequent Security Council Resolutions, the United
Nations Security Council has no power or authority to alter one iota of
the laws of war since they are peremptory norms of international law.
For the Security Council even to purport to authorize U.S. violations
of the laws of war in Iraq would render its so-voting Member States
aiders and abettors to U.S. war crimes and thus guilty of committing
war crimes in their own right. Any Security Council attempt to condone,
authorize or approve violations of the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949,
the 1907 Hague Regulations, the humanitarian provisions of Additional
Protocol I of 1977 to the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949, and the
customary international laws of war by the United States and the United
Kingdom in Iraq would be ultra vires, a legal nullity, and void ab
initio.
In
fact, the United Nations Organization itself has become complicit in
U.S. and U.K. international crimes in Iraq in violation of the
customary international laws of war set forth in paragraph 500 of U.S.
Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956): ". . . complicity in the commission of,
crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and war crimes are
punishable." The United Nations Organization is walking down the path
of the League of Nations toward
Trotsky's "ashcan" of history. And George Bush Jr. and Tony Blair are
heading towards their own Judgment at Nuremberg whose sixtieth anniversary
the rest of the world gratefully but wistfully commemorates this year.
Never again!