World Tribunal on Iraq: New York War-Crimes Hearing finds U.S. Guilty Final Statement of the Jury of Conscience
By John Catalinotto
New YorkMay 15, 2004--Thirteen international jurors at a session of the World Tribunal on Iraq (WTI) held here at Cooper Union May 8 found the U.S. government guilty of war crimes. Their decision followed a full day of presentations establishing both the existence of a body of law defining these war crimes and dramatic eyewitness accounts demon strating U.S. guilt.
A year ago anti-war activists worldwide began to discuss holding the WTI, basing it on the Bertrand Russell Tribunal on Vietnam held in 1967. Turkish activists organized a meeting in the fall of 2003 in Istanbul, which began to set an international framework for holding hearings of people's tribunals.
There have now been forums or hearings in Mexico, Japan, India, Denmark, a three-day session in Brussels, Belgium, and now New York. Related legal initiatives have been held in Britain and the Philippines, and more hearings are scheduled June 19 in Berlin, in December in Rome and on Aug. 26 in New York, three days before the Republican National Convention.
With moving testimony before hundreds in the auditorium here, witnesses showed how U.S. forces used illegal wea pons during the March-April 2003 assault. Attorney Jennifer Ridha questioned Dr. April Hurley, who was in Iraq during that period, about injuries to a 10-year-old Iraqi boy Ali Esmaeel Abbas. A slide showed Abbas in a metal hospital bed, having lost most of his arms, his body blackened by burns.
Some in the audience gasped, and some sobbed as Dr. Hurley told them that Abbas had said that if he had no use of his limbs he would kill himself. Answering Ridha's questions, Dr. Hurley explained that the nature of the burns showed that they were caused by incendiary material that stuck to his body as it burned.
Abbas and his family were in a civilian area. As it is impermissible to use incendiary bombs against civilian targets, this was a clear war crime the Pentagon committed, Ridha explained.
California journalist David Martinez said: "During the siege in Falluja I saw an American sniper shoot an older man who was obviously a civilian. He was bleeding to death on the sidewalk. His family could not go to get him, as the U.S. snipers killed anyone who was outside. They had to watch him slowly die."
Agitated, Martinez described his own change of opinion regarding the occupation. He said this paralleled that of Iraqis he met. Last summer, many said they "would give the Americans a chance to help Iraq. But then they should leave. Other wise, we will resist."
Martinez too thought at that time the U.S. invasion might lead to some good. Now he says, "End the occupation. Leave Iraq now."
A local Iraqi leader in Baghdad told him it was time to go: "I can no longer control my own people."
No health care
Belgian emergency room doctor Geert van Moorter had visited Iraq in 2002, under sanctions. He was in Baghdad again in March-April 2003 during the intense bombing and the U.S. takeover. He visited in July-August 2003 and again this March.
"Frankly, there is no respect for the Geneva Convention," he told jurors. "Last year during the takeover of Baghdad I saw wounded Iraqi youths sent out in an ambulance to a better equipped hospital, only to come back 10 minutes later with additional wounds when U.S. troops fired on their ambulances. I could only reach out and hold their hands as they died."
Dr. Geert von Moorter, eyewitness account of troops firing on ambulances; analysis of lack of improvement of hospitals under one year of occupation
Dr. van Moorter said there is high childhood mortality in Iraq now "because of the general decline of living conditions under the occupation, the lack of food, the lack of purchasing power. Much of the health-related infrastructure was degraded by the sanctions. Now, after a year without sanctions, there has been no significant improve ment in the availability of medicines."
The Belgian doctor, who works with "Medical Aid for the Third World," called on the movement to "mobilize in the streets to demand an immediate end to occupation. The legal approach," he said, "can be useful but only when it is combined with mobilizing people. You can't count on legality alone." The audience gave him a standing ovation.
A seven-minute film clip showed U.S. troops raiding a home and arresting all the men. That this was done so cruelly while being videotaped by a European crew and troops were on their best behavior gave a chilling idea of what these nightly raids mean to the Iraqis living under the occupation.
Guilty!
On the jury were Rabab Abdulhadi, Sinan Antoon, Dennis Brutus, Hamid Dabashi, Bhairavi Desai, Eve Ensler, Jenny Green, Lisa Hajjar, Motarilavoa Hilda Lini, Elias Khoury, Ibrahim Ramey, Kiyoko McCrae and Robert van Lierop. They concluded that the U.S. was guilty and recommended:
"1. That the U.S. and its coalition partners immediately cease all violations of the civil, political and human rights of the people of Iraq;
"2. That the military occupation of Iraq be immediately ended;
"3. That all parties guilty of war crimes against the Iraqi people be brought to justice under international law;
"4. That reparations be paid by all responsible parties to the people of Iraq for the damages caused by both the war and the occupation;
"5. That we work to strengthen the mobilization of the global antiwar movement;
"6. That the occupation of Palestine, Afghanistan and all other colonized areas are illegal and should be brought to an end immediately."
The final tribunal is scheduled for Istanbul on March 20, 2005, two years after the start of the U.S.-British aggression. The organization that pulled together the New York meeting included many students, with much of the initiative coming from two women students from Turkey, Ayca Cebukcu and Basak Ertur.
(photo credits: J. Catalinotto)
Final Statement of the Jury of Conscience
Rabab Abdulhadi, Sinan Antoon, Dennis Brutus, Hamid Dabashi, Bhairavi Desai, Eve Ensler, Jenny Green, Lisa Hajjar, Motarilavoa Hilda Lini, Elias Khoury, Ibrahim Ramey, Kiyoko McCrae, Robert van Lierop
May 8, 2004
Preamble
The war against Iraq has posed one of the most challenging, frustrating and explosive international crises in recent memory.
The World Tribunal on Iraq sitting in session at Cooper Union in New York City on May 8th 2004 and having heard the testimony and evidence presented and having carefully weighed that evidence has reached a series of conclusions.
From its conception to its prosecution and the current occupation, fact, law and logic have been turned on their heads and fabricated to rationalize and justify what can only be considered, by all international standards, an unjust war of aggression.
There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein waged unjust wars of aggression itself against Iran, Kuwait and those Iraqis who did not acquiesce in the regime's reign of terror and corruption. That, however, does not for one minute justify the violence, destruction and degradation visited upon the people of Iraq from the 20th of March 2003 and continuing today.
The responsibility for defining the future of their country has always rested with the people of Iraq and not with any outside power, or external military force, let alone one that previously encouraged and collaborated with Saddam Hussein in some of his most violent escapades.
International law has always recognized a legitimate right to resist foreign occupation. The people of Iraq cannot be considered an exception to this well-established principle of customary international law.
War is a fundamental collapse of human reason and failure of imagination, and should always be an absolute last resort undertaken only in strict adherence with the charter of the United Nations. The current war and occupation of Iraq were undertaken in disregard of the most fundamental principles of international law and with obvious contempt for truth, posterity, and the morality which should guide all human actions. The result has been the occupation and colonization of Iraq and the destruction of its economy and increased violence and insecurity for the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi population. The world cannot sit by passively and watch the continued deterioration of the future of our planet.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) provides an opportunity for the expansion and enhancement of the international rule of law. Unfortunately, the current administration in Washington has not only chosen to separate itself from the evolving international consensus on respect for the rule of law, but has also chosen to undermine the rule of law through its actions against the International Criminal Court and other legal regimes. It must be noted that the majority of professional legal associations in the United States have expressed support for the ICC even while the administration works against it.
Case One
Question posed to the jury: Was this an illegal war?
The laws governing the initiation of hostilities derive from the UN charter.
There are only two situations in which a country can legally go to war:
1. Self defense
2. With the approval of UN Security Council, which is vested with responsibility to make determinations about the "common interest" for global peace and security.
Our finding based on the evidence presented to this tribunal is: the US government has committed a crime of aggression for the following reasons:
1. There was no legitimate self-defense issue at stake: a. There was a long period of a pre-planning and aspirations for war on Iraq. b. The fabrication and falsification was driven by ideological agenda. c. Fear mongering to gain US public support included false linkages of Iraq with Al-Qai'da and the September 11th attacks.
2. There was no imminent threat at stake: a. There were many pleas for continued inspections b. There were many expert statements from inspectors that there were no weapons of mass destruction. c. The prevalence of the preventive war doctrine dominated the preparatory stages of this war.
3. This war has destabilized Iraq, the region and the world. a. The UN Security Council did not approve military action. b. There was unprecedented mass global opposition to this war.
Case Two
In war, has force been used legally? Have war crimes been committed? Who is legally accountable for violations of International Humanitarian Law (IHL)?
Our findings:
Numerous violations of IHL have been committed by the US and coalition forces. Civilian leaders are responsible and accountable for grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and their Protocol I.
1. The US is a party to the Geneva Conventions, which are thus binding on the US .
2. Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions constitutes customary international law and therefore is universally binding.
3. Grave breaches require prosecution.
The evidence on which our conclusions are based:
1. The targeting of Iraqi leaders in "decapitation" strikes, violating the principles of necessity, proportionality and military values.
2. The use of incendiary weapons and cluster munitions constitute war crimes as these forms of weaponry are inherently indiscriminate and cause unnecessary suffering. Furthermore, their use in heavily populated civilian areas is a violation of civilian immunity.
3. The use of extrajudicial killings at "checkpoints" violates the principles of civilian immunity, distinction, and proportionality.
The US military and the US administration are responsible for these violations and liable under the Geneva Convention for prosecution. The US has violated International Humanitarian Law.
Case Three
Concerning the matter of Iraq under the occupation, the jury addressed a number of questions: the first finding was that the occupation itself was and continues to be illegal.
Under international law countries have the right to self- determination. Under international law the United States as occupying power has obligations to adhere to the Geneva Conventions, to which both the United States and Iraq are parties, and other treaties to which Iraq is a party.
The U.S. has violated all of these requirements. The evidence presented proves that there has been continuing public insecurity including the lack of safety, the continued arbitrary detention and torture, unlawful attacks, the destruction of vital services and economic colonization.
Conclusion
In the name of a preventive strike on Iraq, the US government fabricated a web of lies. We were told that the war on Iraq was waged because there were weapons of mass destruction, and that there were linkages between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qua'ida. We were told that the US authorities were deeply concerned for Iraqi people and their suffering under Saddam Hussein and they longed for their freedom and democracy. If all this were true, then why have no weapons of mass destruction been found? Why instead of finding Al-Qua'ida, have they invited Al-Qua'ida? Instead of caring for Iraqi people, they have killed, starved, maimed, tortured thousands of Iraqi people, destroying their infrastructure, including their water and health facilities. In the name of democracy they have created a corporate tyranny which has essentially stolen Iraq out from under the Iraqi people. They have committed war crimes against Iraqi people in prisons and have made freedom of movement and speech almost impossible. This was done by the US government. The people of the US are responsible and must hold their government accountable.
We the jury of conscience therefore affirm the following conclusions and recommendations:
1. That the US and its coalition partners immediately cease all violations of the civil, political and human rights of the people of Iraq;
2. That the military occupation of Iraq be immediately ended;
3. That all parties guilty of war crimes against the Iraqi people be brought to justice under international law;
4. That reparations be paid by all responsible parties to the people of Iraq for the damages caused by both the war and the occupation;
5. That we work to strengthen the mobilization of the global antiwar movement;
6. That the occupation of Palestine, Afghanistan and all other colonized areas is illegal and should be brought to an end immediately
Share this page with a friend
International Action Center
39 West 14th Street, Room 206
New York, NY 10011
email: mailto:iacenter@action-mail.org
En Espanol: iac-cai@action-mail.org
Web: http://www.iacenter.org
Support Mumia Abu-Jamal: http://www.millions4mumia.org/
phone: 212 633-6646
fax: 212 633-2889
Make a donation to the IAC and its projects
The International Action Center
Home ActionAlerts Press