In
the past, military conflicts have been preceded by acts of aggression involving
the occupation of land or resources, ethnic violence or stealing Helen away
from her domineering husband. But today, the precursor of an armed invasion is often
a concerted campaign of mis-information and a body of evidence that
substantiates the eventual decision to take action against “the evil ones”.
Past
experiences have included testimony to a US congressional committee that
Kuwaiti children were tipped out of their incubators by Iraqi soldiers and left
to die on the floor. It was this testimony, of a 15 year old Kuwaiti girl that
tugged at the heartstrings of the American public and was the public relations
coup that effectively sanctioned the US led 1990-1991 invasion of Iraq ( click here for a full account of this story). It was
subsequently discovered that the girl was actually the daughter of the Kuwaiti
ambassador to Washington and had never been to Kuwait during the period in
question.
More
recently, it was the story of Gadaffi ordering his soldiers to rape all women
who opposed him and aiding them in this pursuit by supplying them with
Viagra-like tablets. Even the evidence of Ms Diana Eltahawy, Amnesty
International’s Libyan expert, was ignored by news agencies when after an extensive
investigation she found no evidence of these “mass rapes”. (click here for full story) They continued to
quote the event as fact in the run up to and during “Operation Regime Change”
in Libya earlier this year.
I
would therefore not be surprised if reference to the recent judgment by Judge
George B Daniels in a federal district court in Manhattan is used more and more
frequently by the media in the upcoming months. He ruled that Iran and
Hezbollah materially and directly supported al Qaeda in the September 11 attacks
and are therefore legally responsible for damages to family members of the
victims. I expect that reference to the judgment would leave out details like
the fact that the ruling was based largely on the testimony of a handful of
Iranian defectors or that Iran was not present to defend itself against any of
the allegations made.
So after 10 years, we finally learn that it
was Iran that was responsible for the terrorist attacks. Who would have
guessed? I was convinced that the Taliban should bear some of the responsibility,
seeing as how they openly supported and protected Al Qaeda. Maybe the former
ruler of Afghanistan? What about Saudi Arabia since 15 of the 19 hijackers
responsible were Saudi citizens and so, for that matter, was Osama bin Laden? Former
assistant Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz had a strong suspicion that it
was actually Saddam Hussein who played a significant role in funding the
attacks, so why not list him as a defendant. No, the families of the victims
chose instead to sue Iran, Hezbollah and surprisingly amongst others, The
Iranian Ministry of Petroleum, The National Iranian Oil Corporation and Iran Airlines.
So
therefore, it would be safe to assume that should for example, an Iraqi
civilian be tortured in Abu Ghraib detention centre, in violation of
international law, he would have grounds to sue the US government, the US President,
the US Dept of Defence and let’s say the US Dept of Agriculture (why not!).
Surprisingly it appears that said Iraqi civilian would not be able to even sue
the private military contractor responsible for the crimes, this, after the US
military’s own internal investigations validated the claims.
The
Center for Constitutional Rights in the US are trying to hold two US based
military contractors (L-3 Services and CACI International) accountable for war
crimes which include rape, mock executions, being forced to watch family
members being raped, being dragged across the floor by genitalia amongst other
more ‘everyday’ torture techniques like severe beatings and being hung in
stress positions. The tortured, none of
whom were charged with any crimes, are still trying to get their day in court.
It would appear that the companies involved are arguing in court that they
should be exempt from any investigations against them because if military
contractors can be sued, it put’s the US government’s interest in executing
wars, “at stake”. If upheld, this would make private military contractors
immune to any law, including war crimes, so long as it takes place on a
“battlefield”. Unfortunately for the rest of us, the term “battlefield” is as
loose a description as a “war against terror”!
Terrorists,
Freedom Fighters, Allies, Enemies. Labels may change with the passage of time
but the healthy dose of hypocrisy and lies to justify going to war remains a
constant.
No comments:
Post a Comment