Grozny II? Fallujah Attack Must Be Called Off - WAR CRIMES IMMINENT.

[althecat]

Fallujah Attack Must Be Called Off - WAR CRIMES IMMINENT.

In December 1999 a very similar situation faced Grozny as now faces Fallujah.

If anything the then Russian Prime Minister Putin had a greater "legal" right to launch a brutal final assault on Grozny than the Bush Administration presently has in Iraq. Such an attack in ones own country unless proportionate to the threat is at law a war crime.

Chechnya after all is a part of Russia.

Iraq however is not (yet) a part of the USA.

And it is probably for this reason that we are told in lots of quarters in kafkaesque tones that the order has been made by the Iraqi interim PM not the US Goverment.

The clear signal being given is that if there are war crimes committed here Allawi will be the fall guy not Bush. A clear case of cowardice in the line of fire. (That said the desire by Bush to acquire Congressional power to retrieve american military prisoners from European custody with force is increasingly making sense. But I digress.

At the time of the Grozny seige - mid Decemeber 1999 - Putin was in a remarkably similar position to that Allawi is now. He hadn't been elected. He became effective President of Russia on December 31st..

Putin chose eventually to back down from his threats to use "overwhelming force" against insurgents in Grozny. He did so because even he could see that he was opening himself up to legal danger.

I think in this case the legal threat can be very easily bypassed around Allawi and attached directly to serving US officers and their commanders... And ultimately the bush Administration.

If this attack goes ahead I would not be at all surprised if a range of senior US cabinet members would quickly find there were lots of states that they could no longer visit.



******
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/archive/scoop/stories/56/9f/200001101851.109745f3.html
- On December 31 there was an effective coup in Russia and an unelected - but very popular - self-appointed spy (expelled from Germany in the 1980s for industrial espionage) called Vladimir Putin became president. Six months ago his name was probably a state secret. Today Putin is the controller of the world's second largest and second most sophisticated Nuclear Arsenal - and he likes playing the tough man.. At the Presidential elections, in three months time, Putin intends to acquire a democratic cloak of respectability. His stated aim several months ago was to increase military spending by more than 50%, he is less specific now.

A BLAST FROM THE PAST FOLLOWS...

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/archive/scoop/stories/0b/f8/199912121421.1f7ae1da.html
Scoop Editorial: The Right Thing To Do
12 December 1999, 2:21 pm
Opinion: Alastair Thompson

Russia this week decided not to blanket bomb Grozny. With the benefit of hindsight it appears the decision not to bomb was taken on Tuesday, right at the beginning of the week, Scoop's Alastair Thompson reports on the motivations behind the sudden Russian change of heart on its "big bang Grozny" agenda.

Officially the Russian Government now says their "leave or die" ultimatum was never meant what it seemed to all the world to mean. That said the words "leave or die" do not appear to leave a lot of room for confusion .

The ultimatum, issued Monday to the residents of Grozny in a leaflet drop, on its face stated an clear intention to commit a war crime.

As has been pointed out by all the talking heads and World leaders this week it is legally and morally wrong to attack innocent civilians during an armed conflict, or to allow them to become caught in the cross-fire intentionally.

And now it seems the Russian army, and even Prime Minister Putin, also recognise this.

This morning the latest news from the siege of Grozny is that no all-out assault on the Chechen capital will take place for "two or three weeks" at least.

And so it seems the remaining pockets of Mujahadin will have till at least after the dust settles on the Russian Parliamentary elections of December 19 before they will again face the full onslaught of the Russian army.

Most probably this will mean the offensive will not be rejoined till after Christmas and the millennium New Year. A Christmas campaign is unlikely as at the end of 1995 the Russian's went on a bloody New Year's offensive in Chechnya that would be extremely hazardous, politically, to risk repeating.

Today the Russian decision is a great relief for the world, and a victory for sanity in what appears to be an increasingly insane time.

Particularly pleasing over the past week has been the swiftness and unanimity of the condemnation of the Russian plans.

But perhaps the most interesting aspect of this historic military climbdown are the motivations behind the change of heart.

In the West the decision not to bomb will certainly be crowed over as another victory for diplomacy - and it is.

But - like the decision of the Indonesian military to withdraw from East Timor and allow in UN peacekeepers - this decision is far more complex than that, and ultimately the reasons for averting the crisis were probably more domestic than international. In this sense it is more a victory for democracy than diplomacy.

The simple truth is that to have proceeded to commit what would have clearly been a war-crime in Grozny would have endangered the political situation domestically of those involved in the military action, just as much as it would have made Russia an international pariah.

The Chechen conflict is being fed to the Russian people as a just and righteous fight against dangerous Islamic terrorists. Killing thousands of ill, elderly and in-firm Chechens is not part of the screenplay. It seems likely that over the past week the potential of the bombing plan to polarise the Russian public has been reassessed by the Russian political leadership.

But to give credit where it is due the Russian government appeared to realise the enormity of their PR blunder almost immediately they had made it.

Hence the - "the words were only aimed at bandits" - explanation by Prime Minister Putin of the ultimatum early this week. Effectively the message to the Russian people in this was, "we are not the monsters we are being portrayed as in Western media."

On Wednesday morning in New Zealand (Tuesday in the US) when the news of the Russian reinterpretation of the words "leave or die" broke, a BBC reporter said the change of heart was due to "moral" reasons.

Of all the reasons given for the change of heart this rings most clearly.

It seems possible that when the big bang in Grozny campaign was hatched in a Russian army simulations computer it never occurred to military planners that there might be a problem with civilians on the ground. The ultimatum may even have been a last minute afterthought when someone pointed out the error in their ways. We will probably never know.

That said launching a carpet bombing exercise at a large city is no mean feat. Planning for the display of might which has now been effectively cancelled will have been in train for months and the fact that Russian military planners have no plan B is clearly evidenced in their announcement today of what amounts to a millennial lull in hostilities.

Now in the aftermath of the Russian decision - just as we did after UN peace keepers were called in East Timor (contrary to all expectations) - we can only speculate on how close the world came to a far worse outcome.

We can say for sure, however, that events of the past week have thrown a huge spanner in Vladimir Putin's presidential election campaign.

The Russian army generals behind the Chechen offensive - and presumably Prime Minister Putin himself - had been planning for a spectacular "big bang" pre-election victory in Chechnya leading hopefully to positive indications for Putin's future from the ballot box.

The military and political planners always knew when the election would be and their timing appeared close to spot on.

Now however the propaganda effort is coming unstuck. The thread is unwinding and ten days can be a remarkably long time in politics. That said, for Putin, the battle is far from over and he continues to show a fairly deft touch in the game.

With Yeltsin and Jiang Zemin holding a 1950s cold war revival sabre rattling session in Beijing, Putin has very cleverly now made himself look somewhat moderate and reasoned in comparison.

And now, just as the future of East Timor was decided democratically in Jakarta the future for Chechnya is likely to be decided on the campaign trail for the upcoming elections.

The Russian people now have a choice. A path of war, deceit and jingosim , or the probably equally hard - but infinitely more rewarding - path of peace and reconciliation.

[Kagemusha]

1. Just to remind you people, the US has immunity for war crimes

for all coalition activity taken in the course of pacifying Iraq.

The UN security council has spoken.

[althecat]

3. As far as I am aware.. immunity is not as clear as that/

...I think there maybe some immunity from extradition. But I don't think it applies to voluntary visits, there is no blanet US citizen war crimes immunity treaty in force. However much Scott McClellan says there is the very fact that the attack is being ordered by Allawi is proof that they know they are on dangerous legal grounds.

Senior officers and politicians would run a risk of losing some freedom of movement should this attack go ahead. There is no question that at law that is the case.

The USA desperately needs a RULE OF LAW booster shot.

Fox News is not a courtroom... even if Chimpy and his minders say it is.

[althecat]

5. Just read this again... Which resolution...

Do you know? I am not doubting you.. I didn't realise there was a resolution granting immunity for war crimes.... I suspect the wording may be crucial here.

[althecat]

6. US Immunity in Iraq Will Go Beyond June 30 - Wash Post

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2004/0624usimmunity.htm
US Immunity in Iraq Will Go Beyond June 30
By Robin Wright
Washington Post
June 24, 2004


The Bush administration has decided to take the unusual step of bestowing on its own troops and personnel immunity from prosecution by Iraqi courts for killing Iraqis or destroying local property after the occupation ends and political power is transferred to an interim Iraqi government, U.S. officials said.

The administration plans to accomplish that step -- which would bypass the most contentious remaining issue before the transfer of power -- by extending an order that has been in place during the year-long occupation of Iraq. Order 17 gives all foreign personnel in the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority immunity from "local criminal, civil and administrative jurisdiction and from any form of arrest or detention other than by persons acting on behalf of their parent states."

U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer is expected to extend Order 17 as one of his last acts before shutting down the occupation next week, U.S. officials said. The order is expected to last an additional six or seven months, until the first national elections are held. The United States would draw legal authority from Iraq's Transitional Administrative Law and the recent U.N. resolution recognizing the new government and approving a multinational force, but some U.S. officials and countries in the multinational force still want greater reassurances on immunity, U.S. officials said.

Bush's top foreign policy advisers, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, are still debating the scope of immunity to be granted. "The debate is on the extent or parameters of coverage -- should it be sweeping, as it is now, or more limited," said a senior U.S. official familiar with discussions, speaking anonymously because of the sensitivity of the issue.

In Baghdad, U.S. officials have been engaged all week with interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi and national security adviser Mowaffak Rubaie. Both sides hope to finalize the terms before Bush leaves for the NATO summit in Istanbul at week's end, U.S. and Iraqi officials said. The administration is taking the step in an effort to prevent the new Iraqi government from having to grant a blanket waiver as one of its first acts, which could undermine its credibility just as it assumes power. But U.S. officials said Washington's act could also create the impression that the United States is not turning over full sovereignty -- and giving itself special privileges.

The administration's move comes when issues of immunity are particularly sensitive, in light of the scandal over the abuse of U.S. detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yesterday at the United Nations, the administration, citing opposition on the Security Council, withdrew a resolution that would have extended immunity for U.S. personnel in U.N.-approved peacekeeping missions from prosecution before the International Criminal Court.

In Iraq, U.S. officials are already concerned about the potential fallout after June 30 among key players -- from Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, Iraq's most powerful religious cleric, to militant insurgents. But the Bush foreign policy team concluded that there are few alternatives until elections select a government that will be powerful enough to negotiate a formal treaty, U.S. officials said.

The issue of immunity for U.S. troops is among the most contentious in the Islamic world, where it has galvanized public opinion against the United States in the past. A similar grant of immunity to U.S. troops in Iran during the Johnson administration in the 1960s led to the rise of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who used the issue to charge that the shah had sold out the Iranian people. "Our honor has been trampled underfoot; the dignity of Iran has been destroyed," Khomeini said in a famous 1964 speech that led to his detention and then expulsion from Iran. The measure "reduced the Iranian people to a level lower than that of an American dog."

Ironically, Khomeini went into exile in Iraq, where he spent 12 years in Najaf -- the Shiite holy city that is now home to Sistani and his followers and where Iraqis still remember the flap that led the shah to deport a cleric who later led Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution.

In Iraq, Washington had originally hoped to achieve a formal Status of Forces Agreement to grant immunity, but that was effectively vetoed when Sistani and other Iraqi politicians said no unelected Iraqi government could enter into a treaty with other countries. The United States now hopes to negotiate a status agreement next year, after a government is elected. In the current negotiations over Order 17, a senior Iraqi official said, the basic concept is to cover "soldiers and foreign nationals working in operations conducted by mutual consent or understanding with the Iraqi interim government and the command of the multinational force. But what that means remains to be seen."

The United States hopes to include some foreign contractors, many of whom are engaged in security operations, the Iraqi official added, while Iraq is pressing to retain sovereignty. "It's going to be a political hot potato, and we're worried it'll be used as a hot potato in a way that is not good for either the interim government or the multinational force," the official said.

As a legal basis, Iraq's transitional law, which was worked out between Bremer and the now-disbanded Iraqi Governing Council, may be considered too weak a foundation for granting immunity. Sistani argued against it because it was not the work of elected officials. The U.N. resolution also has no direct reference to immunity for foreign troops. The only reference is in a letter from Powell to the Security Council attached to the resolution, which says contributing states in the multinational force must "have responsibility for exercising jurisdiction over their personnel" but does not mention prosecution or other specific activity.

Staff writer Thomas E. Ricks contributed to this report.

[mike_c]

8. this isn't UNSC immunity-- this is Bremers last kick in the nuts...

...to the illusion of Iraqi self-rule, in case any in the puppet government should get a notion to take exception to the wanton murder of civilians.

[mike_c]

7. can you provide a citation...?

Here's a sampling of what I've found:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/oct2002/icc-o12.shtml

"With just a week to go before the supposed “transfer of power” in Iraq, Washington has decided to unilaterally renew a decree granting its troops, as well as private American contractors, complete immunity from prosecution under Iraqi law.

The measure allows the US military as well as hired mercenaries to commit war crimes with impunity, including the killing of civilians, the destruction of homes and property, and the extra-legal detention and torture of prisoners.

The move epitomizes the arrogance and criminality of the Bush administration, which declares, in one breath, that it is granting “full sovereignty” to occupied Iraq, and in the next imposes conditions that deprive the “sovereign” government of the most essential prerequisites of sovereignty." <more>


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3834089.stm

"US war crimes immunity bid fails
The prisoner abuse scandal undermined support for the US
The US has given up trying to win its soldiers immunity from prosecution at the new International Criminal Court.

United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan had warned the Security Council not to renew the measure, partly because of the prisoner abuse scandal.

Washington withdrew its resolution after it became clear it would not get the required support.

For the last two years it had secured special status for US troops, arguing they could face malicious prosecutions.

The BBC's Susannah Price at the United Nations says the latest move is a major climb-down for the Americans, who rarely face such united opposition on the Council." <more>


http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=599

Jun 23 - After a majority of UN Security Council members indicated they would abstain from voting on a US-sponsored resolution that would have extended the special immunity for American troops who commit war crimes abroad, the US withdrew the bill on Wednesday. As a result of previous success by the US at using threats to convince member nations to provide special immunity, American troops spent the last two years uniquely impervious to prosecution by a new, international tribunal. But when that immunity ends on June 30, American military personnel will technically be subject to the court’s jurisdiction.

American officials told reporters the US will continue to negotiate individual agreements with member nations to ensure those countries do not use the International Criminal Court (ICC), which the US has refused to ratify, to prosecute American troops or officials for war crimes. Ninety such agreements have already been signed.


http://www.inq7.net/wnw/2004/jun/25/wnw_7-1.htm

"US abandons bid to extend
war crimes immunity
Posted: 7:02 PM (Manila Time) | Jun. 24, 2004
Agence France-Presse

UNITED NATIONS -- The United States failed Wednesday in its bid to continue shielding US troops from international prosecution for war crimes charges in the wake of the prisoner abuse scandal in Iraq.

Facing an embarrassing defeat on the UN Security Council, Washington was forced to withdraw its controversial attempt to get another one-year renewal of immunity at the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

"The United States has decided not to proceed further ... in order to avoid a prolonged and divisive debate," deputy US ambassador James Cunningham said after it became clear Washington could not get the nine council votes needed." <more>


This is not a grant of immunity from the UNSC-- rather, it is one of Bremmers last minute "laws" tieing the provisional gov't's hands.

[althecat]

10. Snap... I couldn't resist posting a new post on this...

More proof you can't believe everything you read on the internet.

[Spazito]

12. No, the UN did not accept the immunity resolution...

so the US unilaterally declared itself, through their Iraqi puppets, immune from prosecution for war crimes, which means squat when the Iraqi puppet government falls.

[NVMojo]

2. frightening but true...

[Stephanie]

4. We've handed free reign to a serial killer.

.

[althecat]

9. WASHINGTON POST: US Soldiers Have No Immunity In Fallujah

Anyone care to light the fuse...

The first reply post to my original post suggests that US Soldiers have ICC Immunity granted by the UN. The following indicates this is completely wrong. If so then why did the US Govtwithdraw a resolution seeking immunity from the UN Security Council in June.

NOTE THIS WASHINGTON POST STORY HAS A HEADLINE THAT DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS ITS CONTENTS...
US Immunity in Iraq Will Go Beyond June 30
By Robin Wright
Washington Post
June 24, 2004
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2004/0624usimmunity.htm

I think the martial law decree by Allawi is yet another attempt to claw some legality for what is known to be a potentially illegal action.


********

"Yesterday at the United Nations, the administration, citing opposition on the Security Council, withdrew a resolution that would have extended immunity for U.S. personnel in U.N.-approved peacekeeping missions from prosecution before the International Criminal Court.

In Iraq, U.S. officials are already concerned about the potential fallout after June 30 among key players -- from Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, Iraq's most powerful religious cleric, to militant insurgents. But the Bush foreign policy team concluded that there are few alternatives until elections select a government that will be powerful enough to negotiate a formal treaty, U.S. officials said.

The issue of immunity for U.S. troops is among the most contentious in the Islamic world, where it has galvanized public opinion against the United States in the past. A similar grant of immunity to U.S. troops in Iran during the Johnson administration in the 1960s led to the rise of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who used the issue to charge that the shah had sold out the Iranian people. "Our honor has been trampled underfoot; the dignity of Iran has been destroyed," Khomeini said in a famous 1964 speech that led to his detention and then expulsion from Iran. The measure "reduced the Iranian people to a level lower than that of an American dog."

********

[althecat]

11. Have turned this into a Scoop editorial...

Is An All Out Assault On Fallujah A War Crime?
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0411/S00092.htm

[Jose Diablo]

13. Not to throw cold water on anyones ideas but

International law doesn't mean squat right now. All law is based on an ability to enforce the law.

Right now, with Bush sitting in the drivers seat, law any law, doesn't mean anything. To him all that matters is force.

How would the ICC enforce a writ of arrest. Call bozo the clown to escort them to the Hague? The UN gonna send in troops to oppose Bush, not hardly. The USA is sitting on the security council and will veto any resolution on that vein. The UN is foremost a legal entity, they will exhaust any and all remedies in that way until it finally sinks in: The USA, is now a renegade.

The world will first try economic penalties, then when that doesn't work they will try to reorganize without the USA. By that time Iran, Syria and N Korea will have been flattened. We will have a draft to replenish our soldiers and the USA will be in a war posture against the world, or most of it.

Rove's propaganda machine will be blowing steam full force and we will be the new 5th Reich with the neocons ready to stay in power because we now know, that voting is a sham. In 4 years from now, the neocons will place another puppet in Bush's place or will have overturned the 2 term limit.

The only hope is to reverse this election, or face being beaten to a bloody pulp by the rest of the world or we will have taken the world back 4000 years through a nuclear holocaust, which is what the Lahayes of this world want anyway.

Even now, the borders are being sealed and dollars are being dumped. We are in deep do do.

But of course, this is all speculation, right? It is all so much tinfoil hat stuff, right?

Granny, get your stuff and hit the freeway.

:tinfoilhat:

[althecat]

14. Too late - - U.S. Forces Begin Moving Into Fallujah

hissssss..... the fuse is burning...



U.S. Forces Begin Moving Into Fallujah
By Richard A. Oppel Jr. and Robert Worth
The New York Times

Sunday 07 November 2004

Fallujah - Explosions and heavy gunfire thundered through the outskirts of Fallujah on Sunday night and early Monday as American soldiers and marines swept toward strategic bridges, hospitals and other objectives in what appeared to be the first stage of a long-expected invasion of the city.

Hours earlier, Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, faced with an outbreak of insurgent violence across the country, declared emergency law for 60 days across most of Iraq. The proclamation gave him broad martial powers that allow him to impose curfews, order house-to-house searches and detain suspected criminals and insurgents.

"We declared it today and we are going to implement it whenever and wherever it is necessary," Dr. Allawi told pool reporters inside the fortified compound that houses the headquarters of the interim Iraqi government. "This will send a very powerful message that we are serious."

[althecat]

15. Late night kick...