UK cluster bombs may be war crime

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=442590&section=news | Reuters

[Sir Gawain]

LONDON (Reuters) - British use of cluster bombs in the Iraq war could count as a war crime and justifies further investigation by the International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor in the Hague, a group of international lawyers say.

Seven academics from Britain, Ireland, France and Canada interviewed eyewitnesses and examined evidence to see if there was a case for referring British conduct to the court, said the pressure group Peacerights, which organised the review.

"There is a considerable amount of evidence of disproportionate use of force causing civilian casualties," one of the lawyers, Professor Bill Bowring of London Metropolitan University, told a news conference on Tuesday.

"The U.S. cannot be tried before the court because it refuses to sign up to it. The UK did."

Cluster munitions are small bomblets scattered on a target area by larger bombs, rockets or artillery shells, designed to destroy infantry or soft skinned vehicles.

Use of bunker-busting munitions had also killed civilians, Peacerights said.

"THIS ONE GOES TO TOP"

ICC officials were unavailable to comment, but Bowring said senior politicians, possibly including Prime Minister Tony Blair, could have something to worry about.

"Heads of state are not immune in principle," the law professor said. "This one goes right to the top."

U.S.-based Human Rights Watch said last month more than 1,000 civilians were killed or wounded by some 13,000 U.S. and British cluster bombs in the Iraq war last year.

Bowring said British aircraft had dropped 70 cluster bombs and British artillery fired 2,000 cluster shells.

A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said cluster munitions were lawful weapons that had been used in line with international law during the war to oust Saddam Hussein.

British forces had "of course" not been involved in war crimes, he added.

Bowring said the report would be sent to both the British attorney general Lord Goldsmith and the ICC.

Experts were dubious the case would proceed.

"Instinctively, it seems probable that political pressure will be bought to bear to prevent this going to the ICC," barrister Hugo Charlton told Reuters.

The British military was also the subject of complaints to the ICC last July when Greek lawyers sent the court a dossier of human rights allegations in Iraq.

The court has received hundreds of complaints from dozens of countries since it came into force in July 2002, but only one formal investigation has been launched, into reported crimes in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

[antiRepublicrat]

Would you say Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes ?

Here's a little insight from Truman on the method of choosing the targets of Hiroshima and Nagasaki:

This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital or the new

We bombed legitimate targets in an effort to stop the war and avert a much worse (especially for the Japanese) invasion.

Dresden was a city of little industrial importance and cramped full of refugees fleeing the Russians at a time when Germany's industrial might had been crushed and forces were advancing on both sides. The war would be over in two more months.

The British firebombed an entire city of civilians and wounded soldiers for dubious military reasons, destroying 14,000 homes, 72 schools, 22 hospitals and other buildings, and apparently no military targets. To give an idea of the calculated devastation, the British first dropped HE bombs to expose the timbers of all of the buildings, then dropped incindiary bombs to light them, then more HE and strafing to hamper firefighting efforts. When the air above the city heated enough, cold air rushed in at ground level to replace the quickly rising hot air, sucking people into the firestorm. This as opposed to a simple HE bombing to take out military targets. The attack was designed to completely devastate a civilian population, and had a body count higher than that of Hiroshima.

[Atlantic Friend]

Jeez, I had no idea it was THAT awful. But isn't an enemy city a legitimate target in times of war ?

[antiRepublicrat]

Jeez, I had no idea it was THAT awful. But isn't an enemy city a legitimate target in times of war ?

Until then we had been bombing only military targets. The Americans bombed during the day in order to be able to accurately hit legitimate targets, while the British bombed at night when it was safer for the pilots, but less accurate.

I think the British just did it because they were mad at the bombing of London. Still, in that one way they lowered themselves to Hitler's level and even below. It actually hurt the war effort in the sense that it gave Hitler a massive propaganda piece to rally the beaten populace against the Allies.

[Pilsner]

One theory of why the Brits firebombed Dresden is that the Russians were about to capture it. Churchill wanted Stalin's troops to see what British bombers had done. He feared the Soviet leader would use see only how much larger the Red Army was than the Anglo-American Army and start a war. He wanted to make sure Stalin included the power of strategic bombing in his calculations.

[kennedy]

"The U.S. cannot be tried before the court because it refuses to sign up to it. The UK did."

Which is why we didn't sign it and the UK shouldn't have.

[Lucky Dog]

"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it." R.E. Lee

[Prodigal Son]

Here's an idea: make all actions of war- crimes. Then you would eliminate war.

Next you could outlaw poverty as well.

Two strokes of the pen, problems solved.

[Atlantic Friend]

Nice quote. It reminds me of what Napoleon said about battles won : there is nothing worse, except, of course, battles lost.

I'm not versed in the American Civil War, and I wondered what happened to Lee afterward ?

[Lucky Dog]

Lee was not tried as a war criminal/traitor, although there were some on the winning side who pushed for it. His civil rights (voting, the right to hold office, but not legal protections) were suspended. He became president of Washington University from after the Civil War until his death. That university was later renamed as Washington and Lee. His citizenship was fully restored posthumously by President Ford nearly a century after his death.

There are many who maintain that Lee was the most able general at strategic force deployment in the entire conflict. These people maintain that U.S. Grant's war of attrition strategy succeeded not out of military brilliance but sheer material strength. Of course, Grant must be credited with recognition of Lee's unalterable strategic weakness. Grant must also be credited with his willingness to accept the terrible price of attacking that weakness.