War Crimes

Macedonian War Crimes Tribunal Underway at The Hague

On August 12^th, 2001, 14 policemen in Macedonia destroyed several homes with hand grenades, fire, and shelling in retaliation for eight soldiers killed by a land mine. The activities resulted in the killing of seven men. This year, the deaths are the first case to go before a war crimes tribunal at The Hague, Netherlands. The former interior minister, Ljube Boskovski, and Johan Tarculovsky, a senior police official, face charges ranging from murder to cruel treatment. The UN prosecutors state Tarculovsky was part of a criminal enterprise that directs attacks against civilians, while Boskovski was responsible for the actions of the policemen who committed the acts. The policemen who committed the acts are not on trial. Both men have pleaded not guilty and their defense lawyers argue there was no war in Macedonia, and therefore war crimes charges are moot.

The scenario surrounding these actions is similar to those that occurred in the Haditha case in which US military personnel allegedly committed similar atrocities. After encountering an improvised explosive device, eight members of a US Marine retaliated against civilians in the town. The Marines have been charged with un-premeditated murder of 24 Iraqi’s. They were charged according to US law. The difference here is that the conduct was committed during war time and the soldiers were not brought before an international system. It is unclear why the Macedonian case was not brought to the domestic systems there.

AP has coverage here.

Abu Zubaydah Testifies before Combatant Status Review Tribunal

Abu Zubaydah has denied a connection with al Qa’ida and Usamma bin Laden during a Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) at Guantanamo Bay. CSRT’s are the method by which that status of detainee’s is determined. The US accuses Zubaydah of being a senior al Qa’ida associate and leading a terrorist training camp. In his testimony, Zubaydah said he is in fact an enemy of the US, however, he did not affiliate himself with al Qa’ida, which he criticized for targeting civilians. Zubaydah claims his statements were made under duress, and President Bush has acknowledged that the US Central Intelligence Agency used “alternative” methods to interrogate “high value” targets under CIA custody.

Washington Post has it here.

Sudanese Government Approves UN Peacekeeping Force to Darfur

The UN Security Council moved to deploy a heavy peacekeeping force to Darfur following the approval of the Sudanese government. The process to provide funding for 3000 troops, six attack helicopters, and other equipment, used to supplement the African Union (AU) force already in place was begun at the Security Council. The first phases are a support package with the ultimate goal of a robust hybrid UN-AU force. The UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, urged UN members to contribute troops to the contingent as the UN has no standing force of its own and must rely on the political good will of its member states.

Washington Post has more details here.

A previously unknown organization calling itself al-Tawhid al-Jihad Brigade has e-mailed the Palestinian Ramattan news agency claiming they have murdered BBC news correspondent, Alan Johnston. Mr. Johnston was abducted in Gaza City on March 12th. He had been reporting from the occupied Palestinian territories for the last three years. The BBC has received no independent verification and is treating the claims regarding Mr. Johnston as rumors. Last week, the BBC aired special programming appealing for Mr. Johnston’s release and rallies were held in Gaza in his support.

The group, whose name means oneness of god (Tawhid) and holy struggle (Jihad), shares its name with the al Qa’ida group established by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq. The claims state Mr. Johnston’s execution was intended to send a message highlighting the plight of Palestinian prisoners. The group claimed a video of the execution would be sent to media outlets. The statement also holds the British and Palestinian governments, as well as the Palestinian president, responsible for Mr. Johnston’s execution. So far, no video verifying the statements has surfaced, however, Palestinian officials have expressed concern over the emergence of “al Qa’ida type thinking” among Gaza militants. In the past 18 months, over a dozen journalists have been kidnapped in the Gaza Strip, though most have been quickly released unharmed.

Journalists are obligated to differentiate themselves from combatants and international law treats them as civilians. The BBC World Service has been reporting over the past month that Mr. Johnston was widely known as a press affiliate. Regardless, the first, second, and third Geneva Conventions extend due protection to war correspondents. On December 23rd, 2006, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1738, expressing concern over attacks against “journalists, media professionals and associated personnel, as such, in situations of armed conflict, and calls upon all parties to put an end to such practices.”

Militant groups, however, appear to exist somewhat outside the normal conventions of the laws of war. Operating as independent cabals, such as the mafia, criminal enterprises by nature operate with impunity. According to the establishments enacted in the United States, non-US citizens are subject to war crimes tribunals if found in violation of international law. The applicability of the laws of war, however, is complicated when considering the legal status of the occupied Palestinian territories. Regardless, the use of journalists for their audience potential, as in the case of Daniel Pearl, is an abhorrent violation of civility.

To sign the petition calling for Mr. Johnston’s release, please visit the BBC here.

For further coverage from the BBC on Mr. Johnston, visit here.

“Free Alan Johnston” photo: Agence France Presse.

An Ohio man was charged with conspiracy to commit and material support for terrorist acts associated with al Qa’ida.  Christopher Paul (a/k/a Paul Kenyatta Laws a/ka/ Abdulmalek Kenyatta), 43, from Columbus, was indicted on three counts; conspiracy to “provide material support and resources, in the form of personnel, training and equipment” to terrorist groups, conspiracy to “use a weapon of mass destruction”; and for providing “material support and resources to terrorists in the form of currency, personnel and equipment” for operations against US interests.  According to a press release from the US Department of Justice, Paul traveled to Pakistan and attended al Qa’ida training camps in Afghanistan.  He allegedly joined the group in mid-1991.  Upon returning to Ohio, he is accused of storing a “laser range finder, night vision scope, books and literature on explosives, remove control items, and other survival gear.”  In 1999, Paul allegedly traveled to Germany to provide explosives training to operatives targeting US and European interests, including tourist locations and government buildings.

Christopher Paul’s case is different from the cases circulating out of the Guantanamo Bay facility as he is a US citizen.  Jose Padilla, another US citizen, was originally held without charge at a military brig.  After pressure mounted against the Bush administration, notably from the review of his habeas claims, he was transferred to a civilian detention facility in Florida and formally charged.  Five years after his detention, a federal court is reviewing potential jurors.  Padilla’s lawyers are claiming the “dirty bomber” stigma associated with Padilla will make it difficult to find prospective jurors.  Padilla also claims he was systematically tortured while in military custody and suffers from a lack of mental competency as a result. 

John Walker Lindh, the “American Taliban”, was captured during the prison uprising in Mazer-e-Shariff, Afghanistan.  The first US combat casualty in Afghanistan occurred in the Mazer-e-Shariff conflict, where CIA officer, John Spann, was killed by the prisoners there.  Following the nine-month sentence given to the Australian, David Hicks, for war crimes, Lindh’s family had pleaded for leniency from his 20-year sentence.  Lindh has recently been transferred to the Supermax facility in Colorado.

Information on Hicks and other background have been widely covered on this site.

Washington Post: A federal grand jury has indicted an Ohio man on charges of conspiring with the al-Qaeda terrorist network to bomb targets overseas and in the United States, possibly using remote-controlled boats and aircraft.

More on this as it develops….

A Rwandan witness, known as C17, and a frustrated defense lawyer had a fiery exchange during a war crimes tribunal in Canada.  Richard Perras, representing Desire Munyaneza, was warned by Quebec’s Superior Court Justice Andre Denis to be civil in his examination of the witness, after she became exasperated.  C17 has testified for two days about events in 1994, when most of her family was massacred and she was beaten and raped several times during the Rwandan genocides.  She made statements through a translator that she eventually became a sex slave to a Hutu militia, where she alleges she was repeatedly raped by Munyaneza. 

Munyaneza, a Hutu, sought refugee status in Canada in 1997.  Following the passage of laws preventing asylum there for individuals complicit in war crimes, he was arrested in 2005.  According to witnesses, including C17, Munyaneza took part in the massacres in Rwanda, murdering several people with a machete.

UN estimates put the death toll from the genocide in Rwanda at about 800,000.  Munyaneza faces a life sentence from seven charges, including genocide and crimes against humanity.  Canadian law, passed in 2000, states that it “will not become a safe haven for persons who have committed war crimes, crimes against humanity or other reprehensible acts regardless of when or where they were committed.”  Formally, Canada was seen as a haven for war crimes, including Nazi war criminals.  This is Canada’s first war crimes trial.

The Canadian Press affiliates is covering this today here.

Google’s 3-D satellite image tool, Google Earth, has been recruited by the US Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM) to highlight the genocide in Darfur, as well as surrounding regions in Sudan and Chad. Using high resolution imagery, “Crisis in Darfur” offers users the ability to click on various photos showing the savage destruction committed by the janjaweed militias. The feature, the USHMM’s first in its “Genocide Prevention Mapping Initiative”, offers information beyond high-resolution mapping, such as graphs and testimonials, bringing advocacy to the desktops of millions of users. Google’s Vice President, Elliot Schrage, said in a press conference yesterday; “What we’ve done is provide technology that enables organizations like the museum to leverage the power of the information they collect and accumulate to reach broad new audiences, to move those audiences, to engage them and, hopefully, energize them into action.”

Roughly a quarter million people have been killed in the region since 2003. In January, 2005, The International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur report to the Secretary-General of the United Nations concluded that “the Government of the Sudan and the Janjaweed are responsible for serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law amounting to crimes under international law”. Among these allegations are the use of rape as a weapon and the dismemberment and killing of noncombatants. Though the Sudanese government denies the accusations, the USHMM hopes to highlight some of the more than 1600 damaged and destroyed villages, providing conclusive proof of the genocide.

Quote from Elliot Scharge from ABC News here.

The first sentences in regards to the 1995 massacre in Srebrenica were handed down today by a Serbian war crimes court.  Four members of a paramilitary group known as The Scorpions were handed sentences ranging from five to twenty years.  The soldiers were seen in a film, which surfaced during the trial of Slobodan Milosevic at The Hague, leading six Bosnian Muslims to a clearing in a wooded area and shot.  Four of the Bosnians were shot immediately, while the other two were forced to carry the bodies to another location and shot there.  Prior to the release of the videos, the popular belief among Serbians was the atrocities occurred during the heat of the battle.  The trial commenced in a special tribunal established in Serbia to handle lesser atrocities handed down by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.  It was largely a domestic system. 

According to the official ruling, Slobodan Medic, the Scorpions unit commander, ordered the six Bosnians be executed in a manner that made it appear as if they were killed in conflict.  A bodyguard for Slobodan Medic, Pero Petrasevic, pleaded guilty in the biggest domestic war crimes trial in Serbian history, stating that his commander ordered the execution, or face execution himself.  Petrasevic was given a 13 year sentence, though he is the only one who admitted to shooting the victims.  Slobodan Medic was given 20 years.  The verdict comes after the International Court of Justice cleared the state of Serbia of responsibility for the massacre in Srebrenica.

The Srebrenica massacre is seen as the gravest atrocity committed in Europe since The Holocaust.  In July 1995, 8000 Bosnian men were systematically executed in the UN safe area.  A domestic tribunal system prosecuting this case may be seen as an important sign in facing the dark history of genocide.  Various tribunal systems have materialized with mix results.  The Iraqi Tribunal system may be seen as a pre-mature system, while other domestic variances, such as the Khmer Rouge tribunal, are seen as corrupt.  With the first prosecutions from the massacre of Srebrenica emerging from Serbian courts, perhaps in some scenarios, the system is just.

In other news, a court in Argentina has ordered a former president to face human rights charges stemming from the operation of clandestine detention facilities (black sites) during the mid-1970’s.  Dozens of former officials are facing prosecution as Argentina’s Supreme Court struck down amnesty laws.  Human rights groups put the estimates at 30,000 missing from these black sites.

The unedited video may be seen here.  (It’s a bit propogandist, but it’s the only unedited version I could find.)

BBC has excellent coverage here.

I’ve covered the tribunals previously and relevant links are there.

The AP report on Argentina is here.

The regime of Saddam Hussein fell on April 9, 2003; four years ago today. The anniversary was marked with peaceful protests calling for US forces to abandon their “occupation” of Iraq. The most vocal protests were affiliated with Muqtada al-Sadr, a powerful Shi’ite cleric. Al-Sadr’s supporters made varying statements calling for US withdraw and expressing hopes that the fifth year anniversary of the fall of Baghdad would be marked by a more independent and liberated Iraq. US military officials in Iraq noted the peaceful nature of the protests and pointed out that the rights to assemble and freedom of expression were unavailable under Saddam’s regime.

A cascading series of UN Security Council resolutions culminated in the adoption of Resolution 1441, which found Iraq in “material breach” of past resolutions and warned of “serious consequences” of continued violations. The UN resolutions following the invasion of Kuwait called for Iraq to end its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs, and end its repression against opposition groups, among other things. On December 20^th, 2001, the US House of Representatives passed a resolution stating Iraq’s continued violations pose a threat to peace and US national security. Iraq finally submitted to the declarations of Resolution 1441 by allowing UN weapons inspectors access to military facilities. While UN inspections teams did not find Iraq to be in material breach of past resolutions, the Bush administration saw inexcusable gaps compared to US intelligence reports. Following a failed UN mandate for the use of force, on March 17^th, 2003, President Bush issued an ultimatum to Saddam to leave Iraq or face military action. On March 19^th, 2003, the US military embarked on Operation IRAQI FREEDOM (OIF) and the regime of Saddam Hussein ultimately fell on April 9^th. In regards to OIF, President Bush stated; “our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein’s support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.”

OIF encompassed a massive military assault on the capital of Iraq, Badghdad, in a campaign coined “shock and awe.” The US military display in Iraq has been met with wide international condemnation. Collateral damages associated US military actions in Iraq are staggering. The continued use of cluster bombs and depleted uranium by US military forces are in violation of the Geneva Conventions. The policy regarding treatment at US detention facilities in Iraq is also equivalent of formal atrocities according to international law. Technically speaking, the top echelons of the Bush administration are guilty of war crimes. However, the fog of war, as any fog, leaves the lines of good and evil difficult to see.

Iraq has had a fully active chemical weapons program that it used against its own citizens and against other nations. Members of the former regime have been accused, tried, and found guilty of genocide and mass atrocities in response to uprisings by various ethnic and political factions. For example, on March 16 and 17, Saddam Hussein was implicit in the largest chemical attack against civilian populations in modern times in the city of Halabja. It is estimated that roughly 5,000 people were killed by the use of chemical weapons.

Allegations of Iraq’s use of chemical and biological weapons were widespread during the Iran-Iraq war during the 1980’s. According US State Department reports, the use of chemical weapons by Iraqi forces was a daily occurrence, and a UN report concludes Iraq had used mustard gas and nerve agents against Iranian soldiers. However, various reports also indicate that the precursors to chemical weapons used by the Iraqi military, as well as their delivery systems, were supplied by various Western nations, including the United States. Throughout the mid-1980’s, the US Center for Disease Control sent samples of West Nile virus, anthrax, and botulinum to Iraq, and the US Commerce department allowed the export of equipment to increase the range and efficiency of Iraqi SCUD’s. Several dual-use agents were sold to the Iraqi’s with a certain degree of regularity and in 1989, the Central Intelligence Agency acknowledged that Iraq was the world’s largest producer of chemical weapons.

When examining the past behavior of any regime, it is important to examine the difference between an act of war and a war crime. The US actions in Iraq and its policies during the global “war on terror” may be viewed by any observer to be in grave violation of the laws of war. Equally, any number of actions committed by Saddam Hussein’s regime may be viewed on par with the most brutal expressions of violence in modern history. The gravest atrocities of mankind are often associated with great power. When determining the acts of war and acts of atrocity, just war arguments are of ethical worth by either side. The destruction of mankind, however, regardless of the party and regardless of the cause, leaves innocent blood on the pages of history.

Historical narrative derived from Congressional Research Service Issue Brief IB92117, The Center for Cooperative Research, and here.

Memorials regarding the 13^th anniversary of the massacres in Rwanda have commenced this week. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon issued a statement earlier this week reflecting on “one of humankind’s darkest chapters.” The Secretary General made comments that it is important to “never forget” and “never stop working to prevent another genocide.” He highlighted measures taken by the United Nations, such as the appointment of a Special Advisor for the Prevention of Genocide and the establishment of an Advisory Committee on Genocide Prevention. He also highlighted actions taken by African nations, including the Pact on Security, Stability and Development for the Great Lakes Region, which contains a protocol on the prevention of genocide. Additionally, the Acting Deputy Registrar Chief of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), Everand Donnel, indicated that 72 people have been arrested for war crimes in Rwanda as of February 2007. And the US Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes, Clint Williamson, made statements calling for all fugitives to face trial before the mandate for the ICTR expires at the end of 2008, with appeals extending to 2010.

On April 6^th, 1994, the President of Rwanda was assinated when missile fire downed his plane. The following day, Hutu gunmen begin executing moderate Hutu politicians and Tutsis. US officials in the area made statements highlighting the “genocide” that is occurring. The estimated death toll from the first day is 8,000. The US subsequently decides to evacuate all American’s, and Canadian General Romeo Dallaire, head of the peacekeeping mission there, is told not to intervene. Over the next few days, American, French, Italians and Belgian forces are evacuated from the region. By April 22^nd, the UN Security Council voted to withdraw 90% of its peacekeeping force, leaving General Dallaire with a force of less than 2,000 troops, largely cut-off from communications. By April 25^th, UN forces are down to 450, with death tolls nearing 150,000. On May 1^st, a US State Department briefing cautions against the use of the word “genocide” as it may force US hands to “actually do something.” On May 25^th, US President Bill Clinton made the following statement;

“”The end of the superpower standoff lifted the lid from a cauldron of long-simmering hatreds. Now the entire global terrain is bloody with such conflicts, from Rwanda to Georgia. Whether we get involved in any of the world’s ethnic conflicts in the end must depend on the cumulative weight of the American interests at stake.””

By the end of June, French troops under a UN mandate have established a safe zone in the region, though the massacres continued. Finally, by July 17^th, many in the Hutu government have fled to neighboring Zaire, the French are replaced by an Ethiopian force, and the genocide is largely over as the Tutsi dominated Rwandan Patriotic Front, led by Paul Kagame, overthrew the Hutu regime.

In 100 days, it is estimated that 800,000 people had been slaughtered by the Hutu government in Rwanda.

As testaments from the Belgian forces testify, the slaughter was significantly animalistic. Ten Belgian troops of the UN mission were “castrated and died choking on their genitalia.” Many Tutsi civilians were hacked to death with machetes, butchered by their fellow Hutu villagers. As President Clinton’s comments testify, the issue is not a matter of forgetting the atrocities; it’s a matter of summoning the political will. With American memories still lingering over the events in Somalia – where 19 US servicemen were killed – the eagerness to expend defensive measures on non-defensive actions is low. UN efforts have been mounting for a quick reaction force which may circumvent the reluctance to intervene. In his seminal Report of the Panel on United Nations Peacekeeping Operations, Lakhdar Brahimi highlights many of the handicaps of UN missions and calls for a UN force with combat mandates to intervene in ongoing atrocities, like Rwanda. However, the UN is only as willing as its member states. In his statement on the Rwanda genocides, the Secretary General noted that we must never forget. He also noted that we should “never stop working to prevent another genocide”, but we may still be waiting for that work to begin.

Ghosts of Rwanda, a PBS web series, was used to derive the historical narrative.

The quote regarding Belgian troops comes form Scott Peterson. Me Against My Brother: At War in Somalia, Sudan, and Rwanda: A Journalist Reports from the Battlefields of Africa. New York and London: Routledge, 2000. 292 (here)

Ban Ki-moon’s statement is here.

Everand Donnel’s comments are here.

Fifteen British Royal Naval officers have been returned after nearly two weeks of captivity in Iran. The sailors were detained by Iranians after an encounter in which British vessels were searching the area for smuggled goods. The Iranians contest that British vessels had wandered into Iranian waters, while the British maintain they were within Iraqi territory. According to a report by the International Boundaries Research Unit (IBRU), “[n]o maritime boundary has ever been agreed between Iran and Iraq.” The British coordinates of the detention technically lie on territorial, not maritime, land. On the other hand, the Iranians had supplied two separate coordinates, with the revised coordinates laying 0.3 nautical miles within Iranian maritime boundaries. According to the IBRU report, maritime boundaries are variable.

Of further contention is the treatment of the British sailors by the Iranian government. Were they hostages, or prisoners of war (POW’s)? If we follow the coordinates supplied by the UK, then Iran entered Iraqi waters to seize the British sailors, which could be viewed as an act of aggression. Could not the same allegation be made if Britain had wandered into Iranian waters? If the former, then the British sailors were hostages, if the latter, then they could be viewed as de facto POW’s. In either event, the circumstances of their treatment should reflect customary law.

Minimum standards of justice must be adhered to by civilized nations. In the Third Geneva Conventions, we find that “prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.” If the British sailors were instead hostages, the Fourth Geneva Conventions outline that as a violation, but also deals with detention and humane treatment of spies. In any event, there is a baseline of acceptable treatment which must be met.

The Iranians released several taped testimonials by British sailors with various degrees of apologies and statements of treatment. The sailors did not appear to be harmed, and were often depicted eating, and in one case are shown in front of a large bowl of what appears to be fresh fruit. The question of coercion, however, is certainly a legitimate question to consider. All soldiers shown have issued apologies admitting a violation of Iranian sovereign territory, as well as statements admonishing the conflict in Iraq. It could not be expected that military personnel would willingly rebuke their own government without some degree of coercion. It is customarily recognized that POW’s are only required to release name, rank, serial number, and date of birth.

So, where do we look in international law? Iran and Britain are not at war, so the question regarding POW’s is debatable. With Iranian and Iraqi borders in dispute and both parties offering different coordinates, the claims of hostage taking may also be in question. If we simply take the issue of customary international law to task, we can at least see what the consensual usage has been. If we look to the issue of ‘public curiosity’, we see a wide range of displays in modern times. During the Iranian Revolution, media portrayals of American hostages were abundant. Prisoners of war have been shown publicly as well, from the detention of Lieutenant Commander John McCain in Vietnam to POW’s during the Korean War. In more recent times, we see US behavior in its portrayal of the bodies Uday and Qusay Hussein as questionable and its habeas suspension and treatment of detainees at the facility in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib is widely admonished.

If we look to treaty law, we see violations abound, but if we examine customary usage, the issues are grim. Regarding the Iranian/British issue, the sailors at the very least appeared well treated and knew their charges. The same may not be said regarding US treatment of its detainees. International law and the customs of war derive from consensual usage and customs among civilized nations. Tolerance and dignity influence international law and customs. In the 21^st century conflict between the West and the Rest, with whom does tolerance and dignity lie?

Map credit: International Boundaries Research Unit.