Abu Juwairiya
Junior Member
'The Bush administration [George Bush Jr] is committing war crimes and other serious violations of international law in Iraq as a matter of routine policy'. It documented ten categories of violations. These included: 'unlawful acts' involving 'widespread and unnecessary civilian casualties'; 'unlawful detention and torture' involving indiscriminate arrests with around 90 per cent of those detained being innocent bystanders swept up in illegal mass arrests; and 'collective punishment', involving 'taking a cue from Israeli tactics in the occupied territories', by demolishing civilian homes, sealing off entire towns and villages and 'using indiscriminate, overwhelming force in crowded urban areas".
(Source: [US-based 'Centre for Economic and Social Rights' Report June 2004] As Cited by 'UnPeople' by Mark Curtis, P 19, 2004)
A few points can be raised here. The perspectives can be both 'Prima Facie' and prejudiced in favour of an American perspective.
The Prima Facie View: In the light of the findings, what is the Power of the UN [and any other international body of repute] to allow a country like the US to dictate world policy, wage wars, lead the world and decide what aspects of international law it deems correct to challenge and wants changes to and second why is Israel allowed to hold such power. Third, if almost any other country was to be guilty of this, what is the likelihood it would be condemned and at the most shunned by the rest of the world as an oppressive state. Why the double standards?
The American perspective: It is Anti Semetic [It mentions 'taking a cue from Israeli tactics in the occupied territories', by demolishing civilian homes, sealing off entire towns and villages and 'using indiscriminate, overwhelming force in crowded urban areas"]. The US principled position on justice means the Americans are diametrically opposed to any and all forms of human rights violations and war crimes and hence it is impossible for them to be guilty.
(Source: [US-based 'Centre for Economic and Social Rights' Report June 2004] As Cited by 'UnPeople' by Mark Curtis, P 19, 2004)
A few points can be raised here. The perspectives can be both 'Prima Facie' and prejudiced in favour of an American perspective.
The Prima Facie View: In the light of the findings, what is the Power of the UN [and any other international body of repute] to allow a country like the US to dictate world policy, wage wars, lead the world and decide what aspects of international law it deems correct to challenge and wants changes to and second why is Israel allowed to hold such power. Third, if almost any other country was to be guilty of this, what is the likelihood it would be condemned and at the most shunned by the rest of the world as an oppressive state. Why the double standards?
The American perspective: It is Anti Semetic [It mentions 'taking a cue from Israeli tactics in the occupied territories', by demolishing civilian homes, sealing off entire towns and villages and 'using indiscriminate, overwhelming force in crowded urban areas"]. The US principled position on justice means the Americans are diametrically opposed to any and all forms of human rights violations and war crimes and hence it is impossible for them to be guilty.