Reply #79: Abu Ghraib is not a separate matter.

[ellisonz]

Saying Abu Ghraib is a separate matter would be like saying Gestapo prisons are a separate matter from the death camps. The fact of the matter is that this administration has systematized torture in secretive prisons around the globe with no review process and has willfully ignored basic standards of the Geneva conventions in regards to prisoners in Iraq. Moreover, the concept of a "customary" standard of conduct by armed forces in war is hogwash, no such custom exists. By your logic the use of chemical and biological weapons, given that they have been used frequently in the past, does not constitute an illegal act. The fact of the matter is that our government has committed enough separate acts in Iraq from the rise of Saddam on wards that if the term genocide is not applied it becomes hollow.

I would again point out that neither the United States nor Iraq are party to the ICC and that both states are not party to the various relevant United Nations Conventions. Thus the relevant international body is not the ICC but the ICJ. Should the United Nations choose to pursue the matter it would likely establish a special tribunal ala Rwanda, "Yugoslavia," and Nuremberg. The ICC definition is incredibly weak and requires no standard of systematization because the United Nations correctly realizes that genocide is often the fruit of the indifference of the heads of state to the actions of its agents. I would also point out that the decision I believe you are referring too was not in the ICC but in the ICJ (see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6399319.stm).

Frankly, Rosalyn Higgins should be ashamed of herself because her decision is incoherent and contradicts the caseload of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. i.e. the special tribunal. Over one hundred individuals have already been convicted for their crimes, including the charge of genocide. Methinks the ICC is playing politics with genocide in the name of getting as many countries as possible to sign onto their "project." Frankly, I hope the United States doesn't sign onto the ICC because it is just another League of Nations, to weak to survive, much less do its job. The key difference as it would appear to me is that the Genocide Convention does not have the systematization requirement that the ICC does. I really hope we do not sign onto the ICC because ICJ and the special tribunals have been shown to be effective.

I really should write a book entitled "The Varieties of Genocidal Experience." :sarcasm:

I will again compare the two differing operative definitions of genocide for DU in general:

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide

"Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article III: The following acts shall be punishable:

(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide. "

For the definitions (rather lengthy) in the Rome statue see: http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/99_corr/2.htm

Additional Relevant Statues:

Article 25
Individual criminal responsibility

(e) In respect of the crime of genocide, directly and publicly incites others to commit genocide;

(f) Attempts to commit such a crime by taking action that commences its execution by means of a substantial step, but the crime does not occur because of circumstances independent of the person's intentions. However, a person who abandons the effort to commit the crime or otherwise prevents the completion of the crime shall not be liable for punishment under this Statute for the attempt to commit that crime if that person completely and voluntarily gave up the criminal purpose.

Article 28
Responsibility of commanders and other superiors

In addition to other grounds of criminal responsibility under this Statute for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court:

(a) A military commander or person effectively acting as a military commander shall be criminally responsible for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court committed by forces under his or her effective command and control, or effective authority and control as the case may be, as a result of his or her failure to exercise control properly over such forces, where:

(i) That military commander or person either knew or, owing to the circumstances at the time, should have known that the forces were committing or about to commit such crimes; and

(ii) That military commander or person failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures within his or her power to prevent or repress their commission or to submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution.

(b) With respect to superior and subordinate relationships not described in paragraph (a), a superior shall be criminally responsible for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court committed by subordinates under his or her effective authority and control, as a result of his or her failure to exercise control properly over such subordinates, where:

(i) The superior either knew, or consciously disregarded information which clearly indicated, that the subordinates were committing or about to commit such crimes;

(ii) The crimes concerned activities that were within the effective responsibility and control of the superior; and

(iii) The superior failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures within his or her power to prevent or repress their commission or to submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution.

The American Exceptionalism in this thread is astonishing.