Posts Tagged ‘Kriegsverbrechen’

USA: Gewaltfreier Widerstand gegen US-Drohnenkrieg

Samstag, Oktober 27th, 2012

“Anti-drone protest shuts down Hancock Air Base – 17 arrested, 13 held in jail

Posted on October 25, 2012

from The Upstate Coalition to Ground the Drones and Stop the Wars

On the morning of October 25, forty concerned citizens created a blockade of Hancock Air National Guard Base outside Syracuse, NY. MQ-9 Reaper drones are operated by remote control from the base, and are used to carry out attacks in Afghanistan and possibly other countries. The activists say this use of drones violates international and domestic law, and amounts to war crimes.

The blockade began shortly after 8 a.m. this morning, when the activists gathered outside three gates of the military airfield, which are located on east Malloy , Thompson, and Townline Roads in the Town of DeWitt. They set up traffic cones, unfurled banners, and held up signs and pictures. The signs named the war crimes that the activists say are being carried on at the base, and the pictures portrayed children who have been killed by the drones. They succeeded in blocking gates for two and a half hours before they were arrested and taken to the Town Court of DeWitt.

Those blocking the gates were told by police that they would be arrested for a trespassing violation if they didn’t leave, but 17 of them remained in place until they were taken into police custody. Those arrested ranged in age from their twenties to their seventies, and included veterans as well as followers of various religions, including those of Christian, Muslim, and Jewish faiths.

The activists presented a document to personnel at the base, which they called a “People’s Indictment for War Crimes”. They also read the indictment outside the gates. The indictment reads, in part:
“These drones are being used…for killings far removed from combat zones….to assassinate individuals and groups…

“Extrajudicial killings such as those the U.S. carries out by drones, are intentional, premeditated, and deliberate use of lethal force to commit murder in violation of U.S. and international law.”

The use of armed drones has become the subject of controversy recently, with a recent study by Stanford and New York Universities showing that civilian casualties are much higher than has been claimed by the Obama administration. The study also shows that the continual presence of drones over some parts of Pakistan is creating psychological trauma in the civilian population. A recent poll in Pakistan shows the U.S. drones are sparking outrage in that country, with 75% now viewing the United States as more of an enemy than an ally.

At hearings in DeWitt Township court this afternoon, all were charged with trespass and disorderly conduct and served with protection orders banning them from contacting Earl A. Evans, Mission Support Group Commander of the National Guard. Four of the protesters were released on their own recognizance pending trial and the rest are being held in jail on bonds ranging from $250 to $1000.

Ed Kinane of Syracuse and Mike Perry, Dan Burgevin, Andrea Levine, all of Trumansburg, NY, were released.

Elliot Adams of Sharon Springs, NY, Judy Bello of Webster, NY, Mark Colville of New Haven, CT, Paul Frazier of Syracuse, NY, Clare Grady of Ithaca, NY, Mary Anne Grady Flores of Ithaca, NY, Martha Hennessey of Vermont, Brian Hynes of the Bronx, Rae Kramer of Syracuse, NY, Bonnie Mahoney of Buffalo, NY, James Ricks of Ithaca, NY, Mark Scibilia-Carver of Trumansburg, NY, and Paki Wieland of Northhampton, MA are still in custody as of late in the afternoon.”

 

(Quelle: The Nuclear Resister.)

Vietnam/USA: Agent Orange – Die Opfer warten immer noch

Montag, August 6th, 2012

“AUGUST 10, 2012, AT NOON: 51 YEARS AFTER THE CHEMICAL WAR BEGAN IN VIETNAM, WE SHOULD BE SILENT IN MEMORY, THEN TAKE ACTION TO REMEDY

By Jeanne Mirer and Marjorie Cohn

To take action go to http://www.vn-agentorange.org/

There are images from the U.S. War against Vietnam that have been indelibly imprinted on the minds of Americans who lived through it. One is the naked napalm-burned girl running from her village with flesh hanging off her body. Another is a photo of the piles of bodies from the My Lai massacre, where U.S. troops executed 504 civilians in a small village. Then there is the photograph of the silent scream of a woman student leaning over the body of her dead friend at Kent State University whose only crime was protesting the bombing of Cambodia in 1970. Finally, there is the memory of decorated members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War testifying at the Winter Soldier Hearings, often in tears, to atrocities in which they had participated during the war.

These pictures are heartbreaking. They expose the horrors of war. The U.S. War against Vietnam was televised, while images of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have intentionally been hidden from us. But what was not televised was the relentless ten years (1961-1971) of spraying millions of gallons of toxic herbicides over vast areas of South Vietnam. These chemicals exposed almost 5 million people, mostly civilians, to deadly consequences. The toxic herbicides, most notably Agent Orange, contained dioxin, one of the most dangerous chemicals known to man. It has been recognized by the World Health Organization as a carcinogen (causes cancer) and by the American Academy of Medicine as a teratogen (causes birth defects).

From the beginning of the spraying 51 years ago, until today, millions of Vietnamese have died from, or been completely incapacitated by, diseases which the U. S. government recognizes are related to Agent Orange for purposes of granting compensation to Vietnam Veterans in the United States. The Vietnamese, who were the intended victims of this spraying, experienced the most intense, horrible impact on human health and environmental devastation. Second and third generations of children, born to parents exposed during the war and in areas of heavy spraying — un-remediated “hot spots” of dioxin contamination, — suffer unspeakable deformities that medical authorities attribute to the dioxin in Agent Orange.

The Vietnamese exposed to the chemical suffer from cancer, liver damage, pulmonary and heart diseases, defects to reproductive capacity, and skin and nervous disorders. Their children and grandchildren have severe physical deformities, mental and physical disabilities, diseases, and shortened life spans. The forests and jungles in large parts of southern Vietnam were devastated and denuded. Centuries-old habitat was destroyed, and will not regenerate with the same diversity for hundreds of years. Animals that inhabited the forests and jungles are threatened with extinction, disrupting the communities that depended on them. The rivers and underground water in some areas have also been contaminated. Erosion and desertification will change the environment, causing dislocation of crop and animal life.

For the past 51 years, the Vietnamese people have been attempting to address this legacy of war by trying to get the United States and the chemical companies to accept responsibility for this ongoing nightmare. An unsuccessful legal action by Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange against the chemical companies in U.S. federal court, begun in 2004, has nonetheless spawned a movement to hold the United States accountable for using such dangerous chemicals on civilian populations. The movement has resulted in pending legislation HR 2634 – The Victims of Agent Orange Relief Act of 2011, which attempts to provide medical, rehabilitative and social service compensation to the Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange, remediation of dioxin-contaminated “hot spots,” and medical services for the children and grandchildren of U. S. Vietnam veterans and Vietnamese-Americans who have been born with the same diseases and deformities.

Using weapons of war on civilian populations violates the laws of war, which recognize the principle of distinction between military and civilian objects, requiring armies to avoid civilian targets. These laws of war are enshrined in the Hague Convention and the Nuremberg principles, and are codified in the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Optional Protocol of 1977, as well as the International Criminal Court statute. The aerial bombardments of civilian population centers in World Wars I and II violated the principle of distinction, as did the detonation of nuclear weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and August 9 of 1945. Hundreds of thousands of Japanese people were killed in an instant, even though Japan was already negotiating the terms of surrender.

The use of Agent Orange on civilian populations violated the laws of war and yet no one has been held to account. Taxpayers pick up the tab of the Agent Orange Compensation Fund for the U. S. Veterans at a cost of 1.52 billion dollars a year. The chemical companies, most specifically Dow and Monsanto, which profited from the manufacture of Agent Orange, paid a pittance to settle the veterans’ lawsuit to compensate them, as the unintended victims, for their Agent Orange related illnesses. But the Vietnamese continue to suffer from these violations with almost no recognition, as do the offspring of Agent Orange-exposed U.S. veterans and Vietnamese-Americans.

What is the difference between super powers like the United States violating the laws of war with impunity and the reports of killing of Syrian civilians by both sides in the current civil war? Does the United States have any credibility to demand governments and non-state actors end the killings of civilians, when through wars and drones and its refusal to acknowledge responsibility for the use of Agent Orange, the United States has and is engaging in the very conduct it publicly deplores?

In 1945, at the founding conference of the United Nations, the countries of the world determined:

to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.

If we are to avoid sinking once again into the scourge of war, we must reaffirm the principles of the Charter and establish conditions under which countries take actions that promote rather than undermine justice and respect for our international legal obligations. The alternative is the law of the jungle, where only might makes right. It is time that right makes might.

August 10th marks 51 years since the beginning of the spraying of Agent Orange in Vietnam. In commemoration, the Vietnam Agent Orange Relief and Responsibility Campaign urges you to observe 51 seconds of silence at 12 noon, to think about the horrors of wars which have occurred. We ask you to take action so as not to see future images of naked children running from napalm, or young soldiers wiping out the population of an entire village, or other atrocities associated with war, poverty, and violence around the world. We urge you to take at least 51 seconds for your action. In the United States, you can sign an orange post card to the U.S. Congress asking it to pass HR 2634. This would be a good start to assist the Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange as well as the next generations of those exposed to these dangerous chemicals in both Vietnam and the United States.

Jeanne Mirer, a New York attorney, is president of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers. Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and former president of the National Lawyers Guild. They are both on the board of the Vietnam Agent Orange Relief and Responsibility Campaign.

To sign the petition, go to http://www.vn-agentorange.org/

 

(Quelle: Marjorie Cohn.)

USA: Drohneneinsätze und Völkerrecht

Montag, Juni 25th, 2012

“Drone strikes threaten 50 years of international law, says UN rapporteur

US policy of using drone strikes to carry out targeted killings ‘may encourage other states to flout international law’

By Owen Bowcott in Geneva
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 21 June 2012 17.54 BST

The US policy of using aerial drones to carry out targeted killings presents a major challenge to the system of international law that has endured since the second world war, a United Nations investigator has said.

Christof Heyns, the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, summary or arbitrary executions, told a conference in Geneva that President Obama’s attacks in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere, carried out by the CIA, would encourage other states to flout long-established human rights standards.

In his strongest critique so far of drone strikes, Heyns suggested some may even constitute “war crimes”. His comments come amid rising international unease over the surge in killings by remotely piloted unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).

Addressing the conference, which was organised by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a second UN rapporteur, Ben Emmerson QC, who monitors counter-terrorism, announced he would be prioritising inquiries into drone strikes.

The London-based barrister said the issue was moving rapidly up the international agenda after China and Russia this week jointly issued a statement at the UN Human Rights Council, backed by other countries, condemning drone attacks.

If the US or any other states responsible for attacks outside recognised war zones did not establish independent investigations into each killing, Emmerson emphasised, then “the UN itself should consider establishing an investigatory body”.

Also present was Pakistan’s ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Zamir Akram, who called for international legal action to halt the “totally counterproductive attacks” by the US in his country.

Heyns, a South African law professor, told the meeting: “Are we to accept major changes to the international legal system which has been in existence since world war two and survived nuclear threats?”

Some states, he added, “find targeted killings immensely attractive. Others may do so in future … Current targeting practices weaken the rule of law. Killings may be lawful in an armed conflict [such as Afghanistan] but many targeted killings take place far from areas where it’s recognised as being an armed conflict.”

If it is true, he said, that “there have been secondary drone strikes on rescuers who are helping (the injured) after an initial drone attack, those further attacks are a war crime”.

Heyns ridiculed the US suggestion that targeted UAV strikes on al-Qaida or allied groups were a legitimate response to the 9/11 attacks. “It’s difficult to see how any killings carried out in 2012 can be justified as in response to [events] in 2001,” he said. “Some states seem to want to invent new laws to justify new practices.

“The targeting is often operated by intelligence agencies which fall outside the scope of accountability. The term ‘targeted killing’ is wrong because it suggests little violence has occurred. The collateral damage may be less than aerial bombardment, but because they eliminate the risk to soldiers they can be used more often.”

Heyns told the Guardian later that his future inquiries are likely to include the question of whether other countries, such as the UK, share intelligence with the US that could be used for selecting individuals as targets. A legal case has already been lodged in London over the UK’s alleged role in the deaths of British citizens and others as a consequence of US drone strikes in Pakistan.

Emmerson said that protection of the right to life required countries to establish independent inquiries into each drone killing. “That needs to be applied in the context of targeted killings,” he said. “It’s possible for a state to establish an independent ombudsman to inquire into every attack and there needs to be a report to justify [the killing].”

Alternatively, he said, it was “for the UN itself to consider establishing an investigatory body. Drones attacks by the US raise fundamental questions which are a direct consequence of my mandate… If they don’t [investigate] themselves, we will do it for them.”

It is time, he added, to end the “conspiracy of silence” over drone attacks and “shine the light of independent investigation” into the process. The attacks, he noted, were not only on those who had been killed but on the system of “international law itself”.

The Pakistani ambassador declared that more than a thousand civilians had been killed in his country by US drone strikes. “We find the use of drones to be totally counterproductive in terms of succeeding in the war against terror. It leads to greater levels of terror rather than reducing them,” he said.

Claims made by the US about the accuracy of drone strikes were “totally incorrect”, he added. Victims who had tried to bring compensation claims through the Pakistani courts had been blocked by US refusals to respond to legal actions.

The US has defended drone attacks as self-defence against al-Qaida and has refused to allow judicial scrutiny of the UAV programme. On Wednesday, the Obama administration issued a fresh rebuff through the US courts to an ACLU request for information about targeting policies. Such details, it insisted, must remain “classified”.

Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s national security project, said: “Something that is being debated in UN hallways and committee rooms cannot apparently be talked about in US courtrooms, according to the government. Whether the CIA is involved in targeted lethal operation is now classified. It’s an absurd fiction.”

The ACLU estimates that as many as 4,000 people have been killed in US drone strikes since 2002 in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. Of those, a significant proportion were civilians. The numbers killed have escalated significantly since Obama became president.

The USA is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court (ICC) or many other international legal forums where legal action might be started. It is, however, part of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) where cases can be initiated by one state against another.

Ian Seiderman, director of the International Commission of Jurists, told the conference that “immense damage was being done to the fabric of international law”.

One of the latest UAV developments that concerns human rights groups is the way in which attacks, they allege, have moved towards targeting groups based on perceived patterns of behaviour that look suspicious from aerial surveillance, rather than relying on intelligence about specific al-Qaida activists.

In response to a report by Heyns to the UN Human Rights Council this week, the US put out a statement in Geneva saying there was “unequivocal US commitment to conducting such operations with extraordinary care and in accordance with all applicable law, including the law of war”.

It added that there was “continuing commitment to greater transparency and a sincere effort to address some of the important questions that have been raised”.

 

(Quelle: The Guardian.)

Siehe auch:

US drone strikes ‘raise questions’ – UN’s Navi Pillay
Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Christof Heyns
Obamas leise Killer

Großbritannien: Tony Blair – Hinweise nimmt jede Polizeidienststelle …

Montag, Februar 20th, 2012

“It’s time we recognised the Blair government’s criminality

By John Pilger

In the kabuki theatre of British parliamentary politics, great crimes do not happen and criminals go free. It is theatre after all; the pirouettes matter, not actions taken at remove in distance and culture from their consequences. It is a secure arrangement guarded by cast and critics alike. The farewell speech of one of the most artful, Tony Blair, had “a sense of moral conviction running through it”, effused the television presenter Jon Snow, as if Blair’s appeal to Kabuki devotees was mystical. That he was a war criminal was irrelevant. The suppression of Blair’s criminality and that of his administrations is described in Gareth Peirce’s Dispatches from the Dark Side: on torture and the death of justice, published in paperback this month by Verso. Peirce is Britain’s most distinguished human rights lawyer; her pursuit of infamous miscarriages of justice and justice for the victims of state crimes, such as torture and rendition, is unsurpassed. What is unusual about this accounting of what she calls the “moral and legal pandemonium” in the wake of 9/11 is that, in drawing on the memoirs of Blair and Alistair Campbell, Cabinet minutes and MI6 files, she applies the rule of law to them.

Advocates such as Peirce, Phil Shiner and Clive Stafford-Smith have ensured the indictment of dominant powers is no longer a taboo. Israel, America’s hitman, is now widely recognised as the world’s most lawless state. The likes of Donald Rumsfeld now avoid countries where the law reaches beyond borders, as does George W. Bush and Blair.

Deploying sinecures of “peace-making” and “development” that allow him to replenish the fortune accumulated since leaving Downing Street, Blair’s jackdaw travels are concentrated on the Gulf sheikhdoms, the US, Israel and safe havens like the small African nation of Rwanda. Since 2007, Blair has made seven visits to Rwanda, where he has access to a private jet supplied by President Paul Kagame. Kagame’s regime, whose opponents have been silenced brutally on trumped-up charges, is “innovative” and a “leader” in Africa, says Blair. Peirce’s book achieves the impossible on Blair: it shocks. In tracing the “unjustifiable theses, unrestrained belligerence, falsification and wilful illegality” that led to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, she identifies Blair’s assault on Muslims as both criminal and racist. “Human beings presumed to hold [Islamist] views were to be disabled by any means possible, and permanently… in Blair’s language a ‘virus’ to be ‘eliminated’ and requiring ‘a myriad of interventions [sic] deep into the affairs of other nations’.” Whole societies were reduced to “splashes of colour” on a canvas upon which Labour’s Napoleon would “re-order the world”.

The very concept of war was wrenched from its dictionary meaning and became “our values versus theirs”. The actual perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, mostly Saudis trained to fly in America, were all but forgotten. Instead, the “splashes of colour” were made blood-red – first in Afghanistan, land of the poorest of the poor. No Afghans were members of al-Qaeda; on the contrary, there was mutual resentment. No matter. Once the bombing began on 7 October 2001, tens of thousands of Afghans were punished with starvation as the World Food Programme withdrew aid on the cusp of winter. In one stricken village, Bibi Mahru, I witnessed the aftermath of a single Mk82 “precision” bomb’s obliteration of two families, including eight children. “TB,” wrote Alistair Campbell, “said they had to know that we would hurt them if they don’t yield up OBL.”

The cartoon figure of Campbell was already at work on concocting another threat in Iraq. This “yielded up”, according to the MIT Centre for International Studies, between 800,000 and 1.3 million deaths: figures that exceed the Fordham University estimate of deaths in the genocide in Rwanda.

And yet, wrote Peirce, “the threads of emails, internal government communiques reveal no dissent.” Interrogation that included torture was on “the express instructions… of government ministers”. On 10 January 2002, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw emailed his colleagues that sending British citizens to Guantanamo Bay was “the best way to meet our counter terrorism objective”. He rejected “the only alternative of repatriation to the United Kingdom”. (Later appointed “justice secretary”, Straw suppressed incriminating Cabinet minutes in defiance of the Information Commissioner). On 6 February 2002, Home Secretary David Blunkett noted that he was in “no hurry to see any individuals returned to the UK [from Guantanamo]”. Three days later, Foreign Office minister Ben Bradshaw wrote, “We need to all that we can to avoid the detainees being repatriated to the UK.” Not one of the people they refer had been charged with anything; most had been sold as bounties to the Americans by Afghan warlords. Peirce describes how Foreign Office officials, prior to an inspection of Guantanamo Bay, “verified” that British prisoners were being “treated humanely” when the opposite was true.

Immersed in its misadventure and lies, listening only to their leader’s crooned “sincerity”, the Labour government consulted no one who spoke the truth. Peirce cites one of the most reliable sources, Conflicts Forum, run by the former British intelligence officer Alastair Crooke, who argued that to “isolate and demonise [Islamic] groups that have support on the ground, the perception is reinforced that the west only understands the language of military strength”. In wilfully denying this truth, Blair, Campbell and their echoes planted the roots of the 7/7 attacks in London.

Today, another Afghanistan and Iraq beckons in Syria and Iran, perhaps even a world war. Once again, voices such as Crooke’s attempt to explain to a media salivating for “intervention” in Syria that the civil war in that country requires skilled, patient negotiation, not the provocations of the British SAS and the familiar, bought-and-paid-for exiles who ride in Anglo-America’s Trojan Horse.”

 

(Quelle: John Pilger.)

El Salvador: Sorry – war doch keine kommunistische Propaganda

Dienstag, Januar 17th, 2012

“El Salvador: Präsident entschuldigt sich für Massaker der Armee vor 30 Jahren

07:48 Uhr

In El Salvador hat sich der Präsident gut 30 Jahre nach einem Massaker der Armee an Dorfbewohnern entschuldigt. Mauricio Funes sagte, er bitte die Familien der Opfer um Vergebung für die abscheulichen Verstöße gegen die Menschenrechte. Der Staatschef sprach auf einer Gedenkfeier zur Unterzeichung eines Friedensvertrages zwischen dem Staat und linken Rebellen im Dorf El Mozote im Nordosten des Landes.

Dort hatten im Dezember 1981 Angehörige der Elitetruppe “Atlacatl” mehr als tausend Männer, Frauen und Kinder erschossen. Die Soldaten warfen ihren Opfern eine Zusammenarbeit mit den Rebellen vor. In El Salvador hatte es von 1980 bis 1992 einen Bürgerkrieg gegegeben. Dabei wurden etwa 80.000 Menschen getötet.”

 

(Quelle: DRadio Wissen.)

Siehe auch:

GUERRA DE EL SALVADOR _ EL MOZOTE (2_3)
El Mozote Massacre, 30-years ago today
The Truth of El Mozote
El Mozote — the US role

BRD: Die 3. Welt im 2. Weltkrieg (AUSSTELLUNG)

Donnerstag, September 22nd, 2011

“Ein vergessenes Kapitel der Geschichte

 

2wk

 
Millionen Soldaten aus Afrika, Asien und Ozeanien haben im Zweiten Weltkrieg gekämpft, um die Welt vom deutschen und italienischen Faschismus sowie vom japanischen Großmachtwahn zu befreien. Sowohl die faschistischen Achsenmächte als auch die Alliierten rekrutierten in ihren Kolonien Hilfstruppen und Hilfsarbeiter oftmals mit Gewalt. Hunderttausende Frauen waren Opfer sexueller Gewalt. Rekruten aus den Kolonien mussten sich mit weniger Sold, schlechteren Unterkünften und geringeren Kriegsrenten als ihre “weißen Kameraden” zufrieden geben. Weite Teile der sogenannten Dritten Welt dienten auch als Schlachtfelder und blieben nach Kriegsende verwüstet und vermint zurück.
Doch so gravierend die Folgen des Zweiten Weltkriegs in der sogenannten Dritten Welt auch waren, in der hiesigen Geschichtsschreibung kommen sie nicht vor.
Dies zu ändern ist das Ziel dieser Ausstellung, die vom Rheinischen JournalistInnenbüro in Köln und vom gemeinnützigen Verein Recherche International e. V. getragen wird und in Essen von der Volkshochschule sowie von EXILE Kulturkoordination e. V. präsentiert wird.
Die Ausstellung umfasst historische Fotos und Dokumente mit erläuternden Texten sowie Hör- und Filmstationen.

Ausstellung und Begleitprogramm
vom 22. September bis 13. November 2011
Volkshochschule Essen, Burgplatz 1
Ausstellungsfoyers 2., 3. und 4. Etage

 

Öffnungszeiten:
22. September bis 13. November 2011, montags bis freitags sowie
am Samstag, 8. Oktober und 12. November, jeweils 9 bis 21 Uhr,

Sonntag, 9. Oktober und 13. November, 9 bis 18 Uhr

 

‣ Den Flyer (PDF) zur Ausstellung erhalten Sie hier.

‣ Eine begleitende Internetseite liefert weitere Informationen.

Siehe auch:

Geschichte der “Geschichtslosen”