Well I honestly didn't notice any other violations than the ones that have already been mentioned so well by Poox, WanderingCrabbe and Corey (killing a soldier who was surrendering, plunder, torture, land minds, stopping humanitarian aid, mistreatment of POWs). I suppose you could include Saddam invading Kuwait in the first place into the mix as well (which is clearly a violation of state sovereignty).
One part of the movie I particularly liked was the way in which it highlighted how George Bush called on the Kurds to rise up against Saddam and then left them to die. I think this is an important part of history that is rarely mentioned. It would have been nice if they had somehow managed to work the background of the Kurdish genocide into the film, but clearly it wasn't so central to the story at hand (and they only have so much time and space in a movie! For more info on this, read about the Al-Anfal Campaign on Wikipedia). Unfortunately it seems as if so many Americans get their history from movies, so this may be the only way people learn about the war!
I thought it was powerful at the end how the American solders were willing to let the refugees die at the hands of the Iraqi guards instead of allowing them to cross the border. It is amazing how they must follow rules even if they understand that it will lead to someone else's death. I realize that the war was over and they had to remain neutral, but it seems absurd to not help the Kurdish refugees.
It also seems absurd that the US was willing to go into Kuwait and stop Saddam because he had invaded another state but was unwilling to stop him when he was killing the Kurds in the 80's. It is amazing that states aren't allowed to kill other state's citizens but they are still allowed to kill their own (although this seems to be changing a bit).
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Friday, January 18, 2008
Ailing GIs deployed to war zones
I thought that this was an interesting article in light of the Watada case. Apparently soldiers who are injured are being redeployed to war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan. While I have read numerous reports of soldiers with post traumatic stress disorder being sent back to Iraq, this is the first I have heard of soldiers with physical injuries being redeployed. Again, I am curious if there are any laws that exist that allow GIs to question the treatment they receive once they have been injured (including redeployment ).
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Lt. Watada's actions: legal or illegal?
Most people so far have argued that while they are sympathetic to Lt. Watada's plight, they believe that he signed up for the military, so he is obliged to follow orders. They have also argued that the Nuremberg Principles are jus in bello rules that don't apply.
As a counterargument, Principle IV of the Nuremberg Principles states that: The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him. Also, Principle VI states: The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law: (a) Crimes against peace:(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances. Furthermore, Crime Against the Peace are defined as "the act of military invasion as a war crime, specifically referring to starting or waging war against the integrity, independence, or sovereignty of a territory or state." (Definitions from Wikipedia. Yes it can be flawed, but also oh-so-awesome). It follows then that if a soldier believes a war to be illegal, than he or she is protected under the Nuremberg Principles.
Following what this person argued, I also agree that the Iraq War is an illegal war. The Security Council did not authorize the use of force, therefore it is illegal. It could therefore be referred to as a crime against the peace, which Lt. Watada would have the right to refrain from taking part in.
While I don't know the laws one could use to defend this line of thought, I wonder if a soldier could argue against deploying to Iraq due to the horrendous conditions he or she might face if injured. I wonder if there is some legal obligations the military has to injured soldiers and what arguments one can make using this case. Clearly the many reports of awful conditions, backlogs, and cases of PTSD not being treated constitute some kind of breach of obligations.
As a counterargument, Principle IV of the Nuremberg Principles states that: The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him. Also, Principle VI states: The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law: (a) Crimes against peace:(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances. Furthermore, Crime Against the Peace are defined as "the act of military invasion as a war crime, specifically referring to starting or waging war against the integrity, independence, or sovereignty of a territory or state." (Definitions from Wikipedia. Yes it can be flawed, but also oh-so-awesome). It follows then that if a soldier believes a war to be illegal, than he or she is protected under the Nuremberg Principles.
Following what this person argued, I also agree that the Iraq War is an illegal war. The Security Council did not authorize the use of force, therefore it is illegal. It could therefore be referred to as a crime against the peace, which Lt. Watada would have the right to refrain from taking part in.
While I don't know the laws one could use to defend this line of thought, I wonder if a soldier could argue against deploying to Iraq due to the horrendous conditions he or she might face if injured. I wonder if there is some legal obligations the military has to injured soldiers and what arguments one can make using this case. Clearly the many reports of awful conditions, backlogs, and cases of PTSD not being treated constitute some kind of breach of obligations.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
What to do with old cellphones?
So this may be a bit of a stretch, but I think this post can be justified because of the effects limited resources have on war and conflict. In this instance it is coltan, a material needed for cellphones. Control over coltan deposits was one element that helped to perpetuate the civil war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the 1990s and today coltan is still smuggled illegally out of this country. In order to alleviate the world's reliance on this resource, it seems important to question what happens to old cellphones.
On average, Americans get a new cellphone every 12 months. With so many people getting new phones all the time, this leaves a huge number of old phones sitting in desk drawers, or even worse, heading to landfills. Some companies have begun to recycle cell phones to the developed world, but this in itself can also cause problems. Many developing countries don't have the landfills to house the recycled phones that will eventually break down and need to be thrown out. The metals inside of them can leak into the water and soil causing environmental nightmares. There are some places that smelt phones which can no longer be repaired, mining these useless products for the precious metals they house. Unfortunately only a small number of old phones make it to this step.
This article in the NYtimes overviews this growing issue. It's long but interesting. It also makes you think twice about getting a new phone or simply leaving old ones in your desk drawer!
On average, Americans get a new cellphone every 12 months. With so many people getting new phones all the time, this leaves a huge number of old phones sitting in desk drawers, or even worse, heading to landfills. Some companies have begun to recycle cell phones to the developed world, but this in itself can also cause problems. Many developing countries don't have the landfills to house the recycled phones that will eventually break down and need to be thrown out. The metals inside of them can leak into the water and soil causing environmental nightmares. There are some places that smelt phones which can no longer be repaired, mining these useless products for the precious metals they house. Unfortunately only a small number of old phones make it to this step.
This article in the NYtimes overviews this growing issue. It's long but interesting. It also makes you think twice about getting a new phone or simply leaving old ones in your desk drawer!
Monday, January 7, 2008
First Post.
Ok, so here's my first post. It's actually a re-post from another blog I have, so I suppose it's cheating, but it is timely and (sort of) relevant to this class. Basically, I decided not to vote for a particular presidential candidate because of my experiences studying humanitarian issues last semester. This conclusion was crystallized over break while I was reading Samantha Power's book "A Problem From Hell, America and the Age of Genocide." This is an amazing book that succinctly spells out the history of genocide and America's reactions to these crimes. I highly, highly recommend it. Anywhere, he's my post:
In the past year or so, I've discussed Hillary Clinton's bid for Presidency with many people, especially when I was overseas. And honestly, I never came up with a position either way. Because Pennsylvania votes so late in the primaries, I knew I would never have to truly decide on the issue, so I just decided to wait and see. I was leaning towards Clinton because I had read a lot about her, considered her an intelligent and capable candidate and relished the thought of America's first woman president, but I also liked all the other candidates in the race. But you know what? Tonight I decided that if I had to vote in the primaries, it probably would not be for Hillary Clinton.
This past semester I've spent a lot of time studying genocide. And Samantha Power's book "A Problem From Hell: American and the Age of Genocide" crystallizes Bill Clinton's inactions in the face of genocide in Rwanda and Bosnia. Her book demonstrates how Clinton's cabinet and staff were so focused on preserving their own jobs and power that they let hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people die. Millions of people. Clinton's lack of leadership allowed these atrocities to continue unabated. He didn't even have to commit troops, just money and weapons and support, and he couldn't muster up the willpower to do that. While people died, bureaucrats in Washington attempted to redefine genocide so they wouldn't be obligated to intervene.
Would Hillary Clinton be any different? In the face of vast human rights abuses, and perhaps even genocide, wold she be willing to ignore potential political fall-out and work to save millions of lives? Based on her actions during this time (convincing Bill that these were age old tribal rivalries that couldn't be solved, encouraging him to focus exclusively on domestic policy and acting as his sounding board for each decision he made) I can't honestly believe that she would. Her actions, or in-actions, make her culpable. And this is not to say that other presidents have not been guilty of the same malaise when it comes to genocide; Roosevelt, Nixon, Carter, Reagan and Bush all turned a blind eye to as well. But this does not excuse these actions.
While optimists might argue that Clinton has learned from her mistakes and that she would be willing to take greater action in the future, I'm not sure this is the case. To be fair, this was almost fifteen years ago when both Clintons were foreign policy neophytes. It is clear that Hillary has learned a lot since then, and her time in the Senate has surely given her large insights into minute foreign policy dilemmas that she never could have gained as first-lady. In fact, her steely demeanor and need to prove herself as a hawk may even make her more inclined to intervene. But I just haven't seen enough to prove that yet.
So despite my initial hesitancy to pick a candidate, I've at least decided which one I would probably not support in the primaries. The general election, of course, is different. And, of course, while all this postulating is lovely, I'll never have to make a decision in the primaries either way, so it really all is a moot point!
In the past year or so, I've discussed Hillary Clinton's bid for Presidency with many people, especially when I was overseas. And honestly, I never came up with a position either way. Because Pennsylvania votes so late in the primaries, I knew I would never have to truly decide on the issue, so I just decided to wait and see. I was leaning towards Clinton because I had read a lot about her, considered her an intelligent and capable candidate and relished the thought of America's first woman president, but I also liked all the other candidates in the race. But you know what? Tonight I decided that if I had to vote in the primaries, it probably would not be for Hillary Clinton.
This past semester I've spent a lot of time studying genocide. And Samantha Power's book "A Problem From Hell: American and the Age of Genocide" crystallizes Bill Clinton's inactions in the face of genocide in Rwanda and Bosnia. Her book demonstrates how Clinton's cabinet and staff were so focused on preserving their own jobs and power that they let hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people die. Millions of people. Clinton's lack of leadership allowed these atrocities to continue unabated. He didn't even have to commit troops, just money and weapons and support, and he couldn't muster up the willpower to do that. While people died, bureaucrats in Washington attempted to redefine genocide so they wouldn't be obligated to intervene.
Would Hillary Clinton be any different? In the face of vast human rights abuses, and perhaps even genocide, wold she be willing to ignore potential political fall-out and work to save millions of lives? Based on her actions during this time (convincing Bill that these were age old tribal rivalries that couldn't be solved, encouraging him to focus exclusively on domestic policy and acting as his sounding board for each decision he made) I can't honestly believe that she would. Her actions, or in-actions, make her culpable. And this is not to say that other presidents have not been guilty of the same malaise when it comes to genocide; Roosevelt, Nixon, Carter, Reagan and Bush all turned a blind eye to as well. But this does not excuse these actions.
While optimists might argue that Clinton has learned from her mistakes and that she would be willing to take greater action in the future, I'm not sure this is the case. To be fair, this was almost fifteen years ago when both Clintons were foreign policy neophytes. It is clear that Hillary has learned a lot since then, and her time in the Senate has surely given her large insights into minute foreign policy dilemmas that she never could have gained as first-lady. In fact, her steely demeanor and need to prove herself as a hawk may even make her more inclined to intervene. But I just haven't seen enough to prove that yet.
So despite my initial hesitancy to pick a candidate, I've at least decided which one I would probably not support in the primaries. The general election, of course, is different. And, of course, while all this postulating is lovely, I'll never have to make a decision in the primaries either way, so it really all is a moot point!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
