Posted on 06/04/2004 6:03:02 PM PDT by kattracks
GENEVA (Reuters) - The United Nations' top human rights official says abuses by U.S. soldiers of Iraqi prisoners at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison could amount to war crimes.
Acting High Commissioner for Human Rights Bertrand Ramcharan said on Friday U.S.-led occupation forces had committed "serious violations" of international humanitarian law in Iraq and had ill-treated ordinary Iraqis.
In a report for the world body's Human Rights Commission, Ramcharan, a British-trained barrister from Guyana and long-time U.N. official, also said coalition troops were able to act with impunity and urged the appointment of an independent figure to monitor their behaviour.
In a clear reference to the Abu Ghraib incidents, since when several U.S. male and female soldiers working there have been detained, Ramcharan said "wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment" of detainees was a grave breach of international law.
Such acts "might be designated as war crimes by a competent tribunal", he added.
The only U.S. soldier to face court martial so far for his role in the Abu Ghraib abuses was sent to jail for one year.
U.S. State Department spokesman Adam Ereli declined to comment on whether U.S. soldiers may have committed war crimes at Abu Ghraib and said the United States believed its soldiers should be judged within the U.S. military justice system.
Ereli said reports that U.S. forces may have mistreated ordinary Iraqis were troubling and Washington would ask for more details.
The United States has refused to sign a 1998 treaty creating the world's first permanent global war crimes tribunal.
The United States was one of 135 nations to sign the treaty under former President Bill Clinton. But President George W. Bush's administration rescinded the signature, fearing the court could bring politically motivated or frivolous cases against U.S. troops serving on foreign soil.
The 45-page report cited one former Abu Ghraib detainee, Saddam Abood Al-Rawi, 29, as telling U.N. investigators he was subjected to 18 days of torture at the U.S.-run prison.
This included the pulling of teeth, kicking and beating and threats of rape, and warnings he would be killed if he told a visiting international Red Cross team about his treatment.
The report quoted Rawi as saying that he suffered physical torture when he was held at an Iraqi prison under ousted president Saddam Hussein. But under U.S.-led occupation forces, he was additionally subjected to "humiliation and mental cruelty".
CRITICISED AS "LIGHT"
"The serious violations of human rights and humanitarian law that have taken place (since U.S. and British troops invaded Iraq in March last year and ousted then President Saddam Hussein) must not be allowed to recur," the report said.
But the report, which asserted that "everyone accepts" that the U.S. and its allies intended their troops in Iraq to behave well, drew criticism from Reed Brody, special counsel to the U.S.-based Human Rights Watch organisation.
"It seems very light, and to bend over backwards to accept the good faith of the U.S.," he told Reuters by telephone. "I don't think it is the place of the U.N. human rights office to evaluate the intentions of a state or group of states."
Ramcharan's spokesman, Jose Luis Diaz, denied there had been any outside effort to have the report watered down. "There was no pressure on this office," he told Reuters.
Ramcharan suggested that among the more serious violations was the jailing of large numbers of Iraqis without anyone's knowledge and without any reasons being given.
His report, submitted to U.S. and British officials for comment on Wednesday, cited Iraqis interviewed in Amman as speaking of "arbitrary arrests and detention as an ongoing phenomenon" since the invasion.
The report said Saddam's removal was a major contribution to human rights in Iraq. His government "was a brutal, murderous, torturing gang that preyed on its own people".
"Everyone accepts the good intentions of the coalition governments as regards the behaviour of their forces in Iraq," Ramcharan said. Iraq could now be "on the road to democracy, the rule of law, and governance that is respectful of human rights".
I only had to see the headline; my immediate thought (toned down for the masses) was:
"OH, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD..."
And the UN should know all about war crimes, shouldn't it? It's COMMITTED enough of them. Particularly against Iraqis. Iraq ought to be taking the bloody UN to court.
5.56mm
If they do (amount to war crimes) we, not the UN will take care of it. If they are guilty they will be punished – we clean up our messes.
Can the UN say the same about the oil for food scandal?
Is that photo doctored or is it real?
Is there a story that goes along with it?
Excellent. Thanks. I'm bookmarking that one.
Yeah. That's why they are being prosecuted under the UCMJ.
Move along, U.N. You are irrelevant.
Another point to that...
Where is the UN when US troops are being tortured and/or murdered by the enemy that took them prisoner?
The UN is filled with camel-loving turd burglers. To hell with them.
"What jurisdiction does the UN have over our soldiers?"
None, now.
If kerry wins, that may well change.
"TWO Belgian paratroopers who were photographed "roasting" a Somali boy over a flaming brazier are expected to be jailed for only a month and fined #200 after admitting the atrocity in a military court in Brussels yesterday."
Oh, but no war crimes charges for these guys. They obviously got a "fair" sentence for their actions. >:p
As a matter of fact, the UN has insisted that they will clean up their own messes irt the Oil for Food scandal. Somewhere in the Charter/treaty or something it gives them an internal investigation privilege and denies such to anyone else.
For the first US president that allows a war crimes situation to proceed and a member of our forces is directed to be turned over to the UN commission...there will likely be resigning of the joint chiefs of staff within one hour of the announcement. That will be the first sign of something is happening. The second sign will be the refusal of the military chain of command to carry out the order, which will be on CNN almost immedately. If a president cannot direct or command his forces, then its a hopeless situation, which would require congress to conduct a review. My guess is that congress could find some kind of charges to bring up against the president. What then occurs...is the total halt on all US support for UN military operations. There would a collapse of the whole support structure within seven days. The entire world would sit in awe that a president would be brought down over this issue, and that the UN could not operate without the support of the US military.
Never happen. Just like gays in the military, they will bitch and moan and threaten, but none of them will have the guts to actually resign.
SO9
When/or if the so-called rule of law ever allows this kind of shit to happen-I will be an outlaw!
Tries to refocus world attention on US troops....with hearty cheers from the commies and Muslims and their allies in the media....
Does this mean the U.N. will be trying it's own troops, such as the Belgians, etc., whose records make U.S. troops look like saints?
Clinton, Albright, Holbrooke, and the rest of their liberal ilk created a cottage industry of war crimes investigators and publicists during the 1990's.
These guys were always anti-US but kept it close to their vest until now.
Just read the quotes from Hoplite's favorite web resource Human Rights Watch..........it is enough to make one puke
UN suppose to be guardians of world peace. If the UN is not able to uphold their own resolutions and rules...then the UN is a threat to world peace. Bush did the right thing going into Iraq and overthrowing Saddam.
If Kerry gets elected, our troops will be under UN command. Rules of engagement are really dangerous if you belong to the Blue Helmets. That's how 241 Marines died in the Beruit Barracks Bombing back in the early eighties. The Marines were told to keep bullets out of their weapons by the UN.
Read "The Future of UN Peacekeepers"
http://www.justint.org/the%20future%20for%20un%20peacekeeping.htm
UN has a hard time recruiting armed forces from the international community. Kerry wants to be trendy and fashionable to the world at our soldier's expense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.