mens Dagbladet - antakelig ved Harald Stanghelle, som får en kopi av dette
- på lederplass i dag skriver at "Krigen mot Jugoslavia er svakt forankret
i folkeretten, ..." - årets understatement spør noen meg - kan kanskje en
av anklagerne ved Nürnbergdomstolen være mer verdt å lytte til.
Knut Rognes
***********************************
WAR CRIMES LAW APPLIES TO U.S. TOO
By Walter J. Rockler. Walter J. Rockler
A Washington lawyer, Rockler was a prosecutor at the Nuremberg War Crimes
Trial
Chicago Tribune May 23, 1999
WASHINGTON -- As justification for our murderously destructive bombing
campaign in Yugoslavia, it is of course necessary for the U.S. to charge
that the Serbs have engaged in inhuman conduct, and that President Slobodan
Milosevic, the head Serb demon, is a war criminal almost without peer.
President Clinton assures us of this in frequent briefings, during which he
engages in rhetorical combat with Milosevic. But shouting "war criminal"
only emphasizes that those who live in glass houses should be careful about
throwing stones.
We have engaged in a flagrant military aggression, ceaselessly attacking a
small country primarily to demonstrate that we run the world. The rationale
that we are simply enforcing international morality, even if it were true,
would not excuse the military aggression and widespread killing that it
entails. It also does not lessen the culpability of the authors of this
aggression.
As a primary source of international law, the judgment of the Nuremberg
Tribunal in the 1945-1946 case of the major Nazi war criminals is plain and
clear. Our leaders often invoke and praise that judgment, but obviously
have not read it. The International Court declared:
To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international
crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war
crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.
At Nuremberg, the United States and Britain pressed the prosecution of Nazi
leaders for planning and initiating aggressive war. Supreme Court Justice
Robert Jackson, the head of the American prosecution staff, asserted "that
launching a war of aggression is a crime and that no political or economic
situation can justify it." He also declared that "if certain acts in
violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States
does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down
a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to
have invoked against us."
The United Nations Charter views aggression similarly. Articles 2(4) and
(7) prohibit interventions in the domestic jurisdiction of any country and
threats of force or the use of force by one state against another. The
General Assembly of the UN in Resolution 2131, "Declaration on the
Inadmissibility of Intervention," reinforced the view that a forceful
military intervention in any country is aggression and a crime without
justification.
Putting a "NATO" label on aggressive policy and conduct does not give that
conduct any sanctity. This is simply a perversion of the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization, formed as a defensive alliance under the UN Charter.
The North Atlantic Treaty pledged its signatories to refrain from the
threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the
United Nations, and it explicitly recognized "the primary responsibility of
the Security Council (of the United Nations) for the maintenance of
international peace and security." Obviously, in bypassing UN approval for
the current bombing, the U.S. and NATO have violated this basic obligation.
bombing by the United States and NATO constitutes a continuing war crime.
Contrary to the beliefs of our war planners, unrestricted air bombing is
barred under international law. Bombing the "infrastructure" of a country--
waterworks, electricity plants, bridges, factories, television and radio
locations--is not an attack limited to legitimate military objectives. Our
bombing has also caused an excessive loss of life and injury to civilians,
which violates another standard. We have now killed hundreds, if not
thousands, of Serbs, Montenegrins and Albanians, even some Chinese, in our
pursuit of humanitarian ideals.
In addition to shredding the UN Charter and perverting the purpose of NATO,
Clinton also has violated at least two provisions of the United States
Constitution. Under Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, Congress,
not the president, holds the power to declare war and to punish offenses
against the law of nations. Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist No. 69
pointed out one difference between a monarchy and the presidency under the
new form of government: A king could use his army as he pleased; the
president would have no such unlimited power. Under Article VI of the
Constitution, treaties, far from being mere scraps of paper as we now deem
them to be, are part of the supreme law of the United States. Of course,
these days a supine Congress, fascinated only by details of sexual
misconduct, can hardly be expected to enforce constitutional requirements.
Nor can a great deal be expected from the media. Reporters rely on the
controlled handouts of the State Department, Pentagon and NATO, seeing
their duty as one of adding colorful details to official intimations of
Serb atrocities. Thus, the observation of a NATO press relations officer
that a freshly plowed field, seen from 30,000 feet up, might be the site of
a massacre has been disseminated as news.
The notion that humanitarian violations can be redressed with random
destruction and killing by advanced technological means is inherently
suspect. This is mere pretext for our arrogant assertion of dominance and
power in defiance of international law. We make the non-negotiable demands
and rules, and implement them by military force. It is all remindful of
Henrik Ibsen's "Don't use that foreign word `ideals.' We have that
excellent native word `lies.'
****************************************