babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Gulf War Crimes

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Gulf War Crimes
Loony Tune
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3398

posted 23 February 2003 07:58 PM      Profile for Loony Tune   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Was anyone aware that Bush I, Cheney, Powell, Shwartzkopf and others were found to have committed war crimes in their conduct of the last Gulf War, by an international Commission of Inquiry initiated by former US Attorney-General Ramsey Clark?

See

International War Crimes Tribunal


From: Where the deer and the antelope play but the skies they are cloudy all day | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mimichekele2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3232

posted 24 February 2003 04:14 PM      Profile for Mimichekele2        Edit/Delete Post
There are some problems with Ramsay Clark's tribunal:

a) it is not a legal tribunal set up by any recognized jurisdiction

b) its membership is not made up of judges

c) Ramsay Clark's own politics unfortunately discredit any serious allegations that may have been made. Clark is a public supporter of Slobodan Milosevic (part of an international organization called the Friends of Slobodan Milosevic that denies that the former Serbian dictator ever planned or committed ethnic cleansing and acts of genocide). Clark is also a supporter, in fact he is the defense lawyer, of the organizers of the Rwandan genocide of 1994. Furthermore, Clark has never criticized the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein for its crimes against humanity.

If you want to look at the Tribunal as a political platform, that can make sense but its "findings" have no legal weight. And the fact that Clark has acted as a defender of various perpetrators of acts of genocide and aggression in the past 10-20 years colours the entire process.

There are much more credible sources of information on the Gulf War than Ramsay Clark. Whenver I read the name Ramsay Clark, I think of the Serbian concentration camps of Omarska and Prijedor, the mass graves of Srebrenica and the corpse-filled churches and killing fields of Rwanda.

[ 24 February 2003: Message edited by: Mimichekele2 ]


From: More lawyers, fewer bricks! | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 24 February 2003 10:26 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, Ramsay Clark has zero credibility. Any Tribunal he convokes also has zero credibility.
Does anyone remember his support of the Coard coup against the elected government of Maurice Bishop?

[ 24 February 2003: Message edited by: jeff house ]


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 24 February 2003 10:27 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So what is the story behind Ramsay Clark's political trajectory?
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 24 February 2003 10:56 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't know, but that International Action Centre he's involved with, like ANSWER, is another Workers World Party enterprise.

People like to tack on that "former US Attorney-General" to the front of his name as if it gave him added credibility -- as if, having once been a US Government insider, he can now speak to US government and Western crimes with greater authority. I suppose it's the "only Nixon could go to China" principle. Former US Attorneys General, however, include such dubious characters as John "this country's going to go so far to the right you won't even recognize it" Mitchell*, later convicted Watergate felon. So it's not necessarily a great distinction.

*actual quote, and he was right, and would have been ecstatic about it had he lived long enough to see it get really serious.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Loony Tune
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3398

posted 25 February 2003 01:03 AM      Profile for Loony Tune   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
There are some problems with Ramsay Clark's tribunal:
a) it is not a legal tribunal set up by any recognized jurisdiction.
b)

From: Where the deer and the antelope play but the skies they are cloudy all day | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Loony Tune
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3398

posted 25 February 2003 01:13 AM      Profile for Loony Tune   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'll try this again!

quote:
There are some problems with Ramsay Clark's tribunal: a) it is not a legal tribunal set up by any recognized jurisdiction b) its membership is not made up of judges.

Yes, that's apparent from a reading of the documents. There were a couple of former judges and a number of lawyers on the panel, but the decision has no legally binding effect.

quote:
c) Ramsay Clark's own politics unfortunately discredit any serious allegations that may have been made. Clark is a public supporter of Slobodan Milosevic.... Clark is also a supporter, in fact he is the defense lawyer, of the organizers of the Rwandan genocide of 1994.

I don't know a lot about him. Are there any reliable, objective sources of information online regarding his "credibility" or lack of it?

quote:
Furthermore, Clark has never criticized the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein for its crimes against humanity.

I'm not sure that's relevant. I don't think anybody on earth would defend Saddam Hussein's human rights record, but the issue is whether the US committed war crimes in its conduct of the Gulf War. If in fact it did, they would not be justified by Saddam's own atrocities.

quote:
If you want to look at the Tribunal as a political platform, that can make sense but its "findings" have no legal weight.

Agreed.

quote:
And the fact that Clark has acted as a defender of various perpetrators of acts of genocide and aggression in the past 10-20 years colours the entire process.

Perhaps, though so far as I can tell Clark was not involved in the decision but initiated the complaint. Regardless of what one might think about Mr. Clark's politics or those he chooses to defend, is the message necessarily invalidated by the messenger? It seems to me that there was some credible evidence cited, which ought to be assessed on its merits. Some of the same concerns have been raised by Human Rights Watch.


From: Where the deer and the antelope play but the skies they are cloudy all day | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mimichekele2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3232

posted 25 February 2003 12:43 PM      Profile for Mimichekele2        Edit/Delete Post
Yes, Human Rights Watch is much better and on much more solid footing.

a) they stick to verifiable facts
b) they document facts about all sides in all conflicts
c) they don't pepper their findings with openly slanted ideological and political statements
d) they campaign(ed) for the creation of r-e-a-l tribunals. HRW was instrumental in pressuring the international community to set up the tribunals to look into war crimes in Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone etc. and in fighting for the creation of a true International Criminal Court.

[ 25 February 2003: Message edited by: Mimichekele2 ]


From: More lawyers, fewer bricks! | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishie
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3798

posted 25 February 2003 04:24 PM      Profile for Mishie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
OK, Clark's not credible, but it doesn't change the fact that horrible things have been committed. Whether a homeless man or the Queen tells me.
From: Sidelines | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 25 February 2003 04:45 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mishie I would appreciate if you would change yourname. It is way too close to mine and may cause much confusion. In fact i thought I posted something here. feared I was losing my mind.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 25 February 2003 07:06 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mishei: Sure, it's a bit confusing, but I doubt it was done intentionally. We have a skdadl and a skadie and I mix them up sometimes, too, but with 4000 people (almost) registered on these boards, that sort of thing is bound to happen. I don't really want to go down the road of making people re-register with different names.
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 25 February 2003 10:44 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ok ...hopefully we won't become to confused. I would have thought one "Mishei (ie)" was more than enough
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 25 February 2003 10:48 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Could be worse, Mishei. There was a "Lalance" around here for a time who was a right royal PITA. When I met Judes and introduced myself by my babblehandle as well as my real name, she asked with a twinkle "Not Lalance, I take it?" I allowed as how, no, there was no resemblence.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca