See disclaimer at page bottom
Criminal Against The Peace
George W. Bush
Bush went on a war rampage to depose Saddam, himself a criminal against the peace, and for the sake of taking out a single man, he has killed HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of innocent Iraqis, a fraction of them defending their homeland against the American invader and conquerer. And of course he takes full responsibility for the deaths of thousands of our own U.S. troops.
Bush will tell you that the Iraqis defending their homeland were fighting for Saddam. Bush will tell you that the women and children dying under his missile attacks and bombs, dying while being ground under the tracks of his tanks, dying while catching a bullet, stray or not, from his regular forces, are staying there of their own free will, loyal to Saddam to the end. Bush will tell you that he gave all of the Iraqis, everyone of them, plenty of warning to get out. Bush will even have the gall to tell you that, if anyone dies in his war of aggression—note the phrase, because its usage is specific and important—then the blame for all deaths must be assigned to Saddam.
But because it was Bush who started this needless war, all deaths of non-combatants in this war—whether intended or unintended—that are consequent to his illegal and, moreover, immoral invasion become Bush's responsibility. Not Saddam's responsibility. Bush's responsibility.
As much as all deaths of non-combatants in the Iran and Kuwaiti wars started by Saddam became his responsibility.
As much as all deaths of non-combatants in World War II became the responsibility of Hilter, Mussolini, and Tojo, the Axis powers that started that war.
When there are deaths as casualties of war, those who start that war are blamed for those deaths both morally and legally. That makes each and every one of those deaths a single count of a war crime, a criminal category in international law distinct from crimes against the peace. Thus Bush is a war criminal too.
The legal blame for those deaths is formalized by an international tribunal convening to consider the allegations and to issue indictments and to call for the arrest of the accused so that they may be brought to trial. From what does this international tribunal derives its authority and jurisdiction? There are many precedents. The London Charter of the Nuremberg Trials, the legal structure of which was greatly influenced by legal principles (rules of evidence and judicial procedure) in the United States and United Kingdom, serves as a foundation. Fifty years of the United Nations has also provided for the development of “international law” in which member states attempt to come to a compromise on universal standards of behavior among nations.
But beyond all precedent, and when and where circumstances compel it, the international tribunal derives its authority from the outrage of humanity. It was the outrage of humanity that legitimized the Nuremberg Trials. In the past, the winners of a war would have summarily executed the losers, without any assurance that those executed were guilty of monstrous crimes. The Nuremberg Trials imposed a deliberate consideration of the facts discovered through a judicial proceeding, and indeed, many of the accused were spared execution, and a few were found innocent and released. The Nuremberg Trials are probably the most magnificent moment in human history, when cool heads prevail over hot heads.
Now although there may be no hope of arresting the accused in the case of the illegal invasion of Iraq, it is at least important for the international community to speak out and to make the accusation, formally as an indictment. The war criminal Saddam Hussein was never brought to justice for his crimes, for there was no way of doing it without killing thousands more than he might kill himself, as the present illegal war demonstrates. But the people of Serbia did turn Slobodan Milosevic over to the tribunal for judgment. So there is the possibility of that justice can be served.
It is important to stress that an indictment of Bush is not a guilty verdict. Bush has an opportunity to present a defense at trial. He must however appear in the court, and submit to the jurisdiction of the court. He cannot present his defense to the world from within his bunker, protected by his Praetorian Guard. He must accept the authority of the court and its judgment. Bush knows that the verdict of the court is not pre-judged. Bush knows that the authority of the court is more well-respected and -regarded than the court that put him in the White House.
The first and immediate contention of Bush supporters is that the invasion of Iraq by Bush was justified, that his actions in making war were legal.
But if the attack by Bush on Iraq is legal, then it must meet the conditions by which one nation can use military force on another. One nation-state (the first) can attack another nation-state (the second) with complete LEGAL justification when ONE of TWO criteria is met.
George W. Bush was LEGALLY and morally justified in attacking the Taliban, the de facto rulers of most of the territory known as Afghanistan, because the Taliban served as protectors for the terrorist group known as Al Qaeda, the perpetrator of the acts of war that occurred on United States territory on 11 September 2001. Bush was legally and morally justified in going to war against the Taliban even earlier, since Al Qaeda was responsible for the bombings of United States embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and those embassies are the territory of the nation.
The concept of what a clear and present danger is not at all vague. Generally it requires at a minimum that one nation-state make explicit threats. Or that the nation-state is seen to make preparations for an imminent war, or to attempt to provoke war. The development, manufacture, and acquisition of armaments and ordnance, or of technology that can be used for making war, and espeically of technology that has peaceful applications—dual-use technology—does NOT meet the criteria for establishing a clear and present danger. Sovereign nations have a right to produce and to acquire arms for the purpose of their defense. By what right does George W. Bush and the United States of America decide what nations can acquire particular arms or defense technology, such as weapons of mass destruction, when the United States not only keeps caches of such weapons, but has even used them?
A nation-state can also LEGALLY participate in an act of war against another nation state when it is given the authority by the United Nations, or its Security Council, to act for the United Nations in the rare case where the United Nations considers war necessary. The United Nations charter essentially formalizes the traditional conventions made between nations respecting the sovereignty of the nations, and for nations not to interfere or to concern themselves with the internal matters of another nation. In particular it is the prerogative of NO nation to determine the leader, or the fitness of a leader, of another nation.
The allied forces that gathered together against Iraq in the War for the Liberation of Kuwait were assembled under the authority of the United Nations Security Council (hereinafter referred to only as the United Nations). The United States led the allied forces with its mission given by the United Nations, for the United States required a legal justification provided by the United Nations, which had to assert that the sovereignty of one its member states (Kuwait) had been violated.
When the mission had been completed by George H. W. Bush, the father of George W. Bush, the elder Bush decided not to pursue the war criminal Saddam because it would have entailed a greater cost in terms of the lives of the allied forces. It was a decision between letting a criminal go free versus a pursuit of one man at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives.
Iraq was given an unconditional order to cease hostilities, which it did after surrending its hold on Kuwait (see UN Resolution 687). An attempt by another nation to use military force against Iraq subsequent to that cessation of hostilities, and especially for the purpose of invasion, is ILLEGAL. There is no language in the unconditional order to Iraq that explicitly declares a particular remedy, specifically the use of military force, for particular violations of the order that do not involve a resumption of the use of military force by Iraq itself. Moreover, since the United Nations had given the legal justification for the allied forces to assist Kuwait in repelling the illegal invasion by Iraq, the United Nations is the only authority that can declare that Iraq is in violation of the terms of the surrender agreement and to prescribe the remedy for that violation.
The only way a nation-state could act unilaterally in attacking or invading Iraq as an act of war without the authority of the United Nations is by asserting an egregious violation of the UN charter on the sovereignty of nations.
George W. Bush has not met that standard. His very effort to coax the United Nations to approve of and to authorize very hasty military action against an obviously contained, if not entirely pacified, Iraq proves that Bush himself was aware of the need to justify his invasion, and that he had doubts about the legality of pursuing war.
Contrast this to Bush's action against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Bush issued a demand for the Taliban to turn over Osama bin Laden and all members of Al Qaeda behind the attack on United States territory. He made it plain to the Taliban that if they refused, their country would be invaded, and they too would become targets, as allies to those who committed acts of war. Bush never even went to the United Nations. Not only did the United Nations not stop Bush, but they even offered their assistance and moral support.
None of this assistance and moral support has been forthcoming by a majority, much less a unanimity, of the United Nations in Bush's pursuit of illegal war in Iraq. Bush knows this. Bush knows that to invade Iraq is illegal. Bush knows that to have invaded Iraq was criminal.
But Colin Powell did proclaim an “or else” call for war. When the pretense of diplomacy of the Bush administration was exposed as a miserable failure, Colin Powell did not do what most ministers in charge of diplomacy do when they fail at their jobs in utter humilitation: he did not resign to recover his honor and reputation. His decision to continue as a cabinet secretary reveals that he supports the policy of illegal and immoral war. As such, he and his UK counterpart are among the accused.
Other names omitted from the list include Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz. Many think that these right-wing maniacs, authors of a treatise called Project for The New American Century, are in fact the architects of the war in Iraq, of the conquest of the Middle East and of the anti-Muslim bigotry which characterizes this war. They claim that these men have more-than-deserving influence in the policy making of Bush. But the fact is, these men would not achieve any prominence if their ravings and rantings had been dismissed as they should have been by sober men holding the real power.
It should be noted that no member of the military, including its highest-ranking command personnel, has been named as members of the accused. This list has been carefully limited to those who make policy and who make the ultimately political decision to go to war. The field marshal in Iraq, General Tommy Franks, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the United States, serve only the purpose of being told to deliver the best possible strategy and tactics for implementation of a war, and not whether one should be fought at all based on political considerations. If it can be shown that the Joint Chiefs and any of the military command personnel involved themselves politically in pursuit of war, then let them take their position in the dock as members of the accused.
Of course, the war crimes of individual members of the military, from the private in the trenches to the generals at Central Command, are distinct from the war crime of having started an illegal and immoral war, the charge which is the point of this essay. Allegations of specific crimes of war in the field of battle must be made where warranted, on a case-by-case basis.
It is the consensus of scholars in international law that Bush has committed an illegal act of war, a war of aggression, and that he is guilty of war crimes in the deaths of innocents consequent to the invasion. They most likely provide additional arguments, and refutations for critics, for why Bush actions are both illegal and criminal. They also are certain Bush is never likely to be brought to justice.
Good, decent, and patriotic Germans were expected to stop Hitler, or to make the effort to stop him. (Some tried, in fact.)
And so it will be expected of good, decent, and patriotic Americans to stop Bush in his rampage of imperial conquest, about which this series of wars is to be. These Americans, with the support of outraged humanity, will be expected to make him accountable for his criminal acts of war. They will be expected to assist in the arrest and the delivery to trial of Bush et al. if and when the court of competent jurisdiction is convened and issues the indictment. I volunteer my services to be a member of the posse.
It is very likely that Bush and his accomplices in crime may never be forced to see the court of justice and international law with jurisdiction to try them. It is likely they will never be held accountable.
But that does not mean that the world should shy away from expressing its contempt and outrage for these criminals through the process of a formal accusation. An indictment itself will bring shame and dishonor to these men until they are willing to stand before the court and to protest their innocence, and be vindicated by a verdict of the court finding them so. Other member states of the United Nations can take additional steps, such as modifying their dipolomatic relations with the member states (the United States, the United Kingdom, and possibly Australia and Poland) that harbor fugitives of alleged war crimes. Sanctions, economic and otherwise, can also be imposed as is the prerogative of the member state.
When the court judges each and every one of them, let the judgment of the court be such that it satisfies all doubt about the right and the wrong in this matter. Let no man and no nation usurp the authority of the court in its final judgment.
Mavi Gözler
American Patriot
This essay was originally written & published in February 2003
Revised in 2007
