If he’s a bad guy, if he’s running the (car bomb) factory, I’ll put the gun in his mouth and kill him myself … but first let’s get a fucking security check….There’s killing bad guys and there’s murdering civilians. Let’s do the first and not the second. Murderers we’re not, OK? [Marine Maj. Nicholas Visconti remarking last summer on combating insurgents in Haditha, Iraq]
Bodies of Iraqi civilians lay strewn over the floor of a local morgue after being murdered by U.S. Marines…
Over six months ago – on 19 November 2005 – American soldiers are alleged to have killed at least twenty-four unarmed men, women and children in the Iraqi town of Haditha in retaliation for a roadside bomb that killed one of their Battalion commanders. But, even though the U.S. military launched an immediate investigation into the killings, talk of recriminations is just now spreading through Washington like Florida wildfires. And it does not bode well for already beleaguered and discredited U.S. forces in Iraq when leaks indicate that the alleged war crimes being investigated make the atrocities committed at Abu Ghraib seem like innocent mistakes.
But the reason the Haditha massacre (looming as the worst in American military history since the My Lai massacre in Vietnam) is being talked about at all stems from the sensational accusations Congressman John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) – a disaffected supporter of the war in Iraq and one of America’s most decorated war veterans – made this past (Memorial Day) weekend. Because Murtha accused military investigators of planning to not only cover-up material facts of the war crimes but also offer offer-up foot soldiers as sacrificial lambs to deflect blame from their commanding officers.
Yet all of this hand-wringing focuses too much on whether the U.S. military or the U.S. Congress should be investigating the Haditha massacre. After all, reports confirming that these war crimes were, in fact, committed should have invoked the following categorical imperative:
Given the U.S. government’s insistence that Serbian soldiers and their commanding officers – who were accused of committing similar massacres during the Balkan war – be tried before the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague (pictured right), world governments (especially those in Western Europe) should insist that these American soldiers and their commanding officers be tried there as well.
Moreover, it behooves the Bush Administration to appreciate that failure to recognize The Hague’s jurisdiction under these facts and circumstances would set American justice back 100 years – to a time when the fatuous “separate but equal” legal doctrine was deployed to dispense decidedly unequal justice to systematically oppressed blacks.
Therefore, international jurists in The Hague should investigate and prosecute these war crimes. Because talk of either the U.S. military or Congress prosecuting American soldiers on behalf of Iraqis in Haditha and pursuant to international justice is sheer folly….
NOTE: Their defenders are claiming that the soldiers who perpetrated these crimes simply snapped under stress. But stress is a natural feature of military warfare. And, if this were an acceptable excuse, universal rules of military engagement would be rendered useless, Serbs and others convicted of similar crimes would have to be exonerated and U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld would be made an even bigger goat – given his constant refrain about U.S. soldiers being the best trained and most disciplined in the history of mankind.
Haditha Iraq, US war crimes
Political Teenager says
Great post, i never thought about the possible involvement of The Hague. It will be interesting to see what happens with regards to any prosecutions being brought forward and where they decide to try them.
Rebecca says
Hi Anthony
Once again you bring a critical perspective to this issue that provokes and informs us. I watched many political pundits and retired generals yesterday going on about congressional and military panels. Yet no one mentioned why we expect soldiers from every nation except the US to be hauled off to The Hague for war crimes. And we wonder why people around the world hate us so much?
Michelle says
As much as I hate to agree with a teenager, I agree with Political teenager. It just goes to show how truly self-absorbed we are as a people that the thought of Americans having to abide by international law would never enter our minds. We really need to grow up.
Jim says
there’s no way these soldiers will be shipped to the hage because pres bush and rumsfeld made it clear years ago that the geneva conventions don’t apply to american soldies.
Anonymous says
Clinton signed the U.S. up for the creation of the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague but the Bush Administration never ratified that signature. As it stands right now the U.S. does not recognize the Tribunal’s right to try U.S. citizens. The United States has not ratified the treaty creating the court, and has stated it does not intend to do so. The country’s main objections are the interference with their national sovereignty and a fear of politically motivated prosecutions.
In light of subsequent events it is uncannily prescient of the Bush Administration NOT to have ratified this treaty. When you are planning for an illegal war why would you sign up for a Tribunal that could find the U.S. guilty of war crimes ?
As a lawyer how can you not know about this Anthony ?
Michelle says
Hi Anthony
I think it would help our credibility in world affairs alot if we recognized the Hague Tribunal. But since it took Bush years to admit one mistakes, I don’t think this will happen.
FYI: to anonymous
As a regular reader, I happen to know that in one of his previous posts on global warming, Anthony criticized the US for refusing to ratify the Kyoto treaty and cited its failure to recognize the Hague as another example of miguided unilateral US policies dating back to the Clinton Administration. Therefore, I think that’s why he suggested that western governments should put pressure on the US to send these soldiers to the Hague. Especially since with that US congressman already accusing our government of a cover up, no one will trust the outcome of their investigations.
Political Teenager says
Michelle – dont expect any pressure from the UK whilst Tony Blair is still in power. Im sure they will turn a blind eye to it and pretent that nothing is happening like they usually do.
jennifer says
Michelle
You stole my thunder. I was going to make the same point without even referring to those previous posts. What about “it behooves the Bush Administration to appreciate that failure to recognize The Hague’s jurisdiction under these facts and circumstances would set American justice back 100 years…” doesn’t that person understand.
But on a more important point, I just hope the silver lining in this mess is that members of his own party might force Bush to get us the hell out of Iraq once and for all.
Anonymous says
Don’t think there is any chance of the U.S. leaving Iraq while W. is in the White House.
Phil says
ditto jennifer. although i think anthony’s writing is so provocative and layered that even i feel stupid sometimes for not getting it, and i have a phd in political science.
but if only more bloggers forced their readers to think, the blogosphere would be a far better place.
Anonymous says
Sir
Do you think Rumsfeld should resign over this?
Tim M.
ALH ipinions says
Tim
It seems a little known fact that Rumsfeld has tendered his resignation on at least two occasions because of U.S. military mistakes and failures in Iraq. But, given the nature of these allegations, Bush would do well to fire Rumsfeld instead of waiting for him to tender another symbolic resignation.
Thanks Michelle, Jennifer and Phil for addressing the question posed by “anonymous” concerning my awarness of Bush’s notorious renunciation of the ICC Treaty. But, frankly, I do not think a response was warranted.