Once upon a time, I tried to push my own small attempt at framing when I suggested we call the actions of Bush, the Republican Congress and various members of the “Conservative Movement” Un-American. It met with some resistance initially, because people were still too polite, or too timid, to call violations of our Constitutional rights, torture, an illegal war, and the use of eliminationist rhetoric against liberals for what they were. But eventually, once a few Democratic politicians began to sprinkle Un-American around in their statements to the press and in their speeches, the objection to its use faded.
Well this time I’m not advocating a frame, so much as I’m advocating that we should all simply speak the truth about Bush and anyone else who continues to defend the war in Iraq. For the truth is, Bush and his enabling friends are Mass Murderers.
Let me repeat myself, for clarity’s sake:
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and all their minions, including faithful lapdogs like Senator Joe “Holier than Thou” Lieberman are
God Damned Mass Murderers
Let’s be honest with ourselves. The invasion of Iraq has led to the deaths of thousands upon thousands of Iraqi men, women and children. Many of those deaths were caused directly by America’s armed forces during both the initial invasion and in subsequent military operations as the war morphed into an occupation, operations which continue as we speak. American tax dollars were also used to train and supply Shi’ite death squads which has led to the further slaughter of Sunnis in Iraq. And, as is the case with all wars, many people have died due to disease, the lack of proper medical care, shelter and/or food caused by the violence. Add in the use of napalm and white phosphorus munitions, and the cut off of all supplies of medicine and water to Fallujah prior to the American assault on that city which Bush ordered, and we have a sufficient number of of dead people to satisfy the “mass” side of the equation.
Therefore, the only real issue regarding the usage of the phrase mass murderer is whether that multitude of deaths can be rightly deemed “murders” for which Mr. Bush and his enablers should be held responsible.
(cont.)
Define “Mass Murderer” Steven
Before we throw this particular gasoline soaked log on the rhetorical fires, I want to be sure you understand what I mean by the term “mass murderer.” After all, its a phrase we usually see linked to names like Stalin, Mao, Hitler, the Khmer Rouge, Idi Amin and the late, unlamented Saddam Hussein, rather than to honest and true red-blooded Americans like our good buddy and Dear Leader, Mr. Bush. With that in mind, let’s look at a few definitions of that phrase, shall we:
mass murderer
n.
… A person, especially a political or military leader, who is responsible for the deaths of many individuals. […]
[T]he savage and excessive killing of many people […]
Sure, there are other definitions available to us, but these two should do nicely. However, if there is one concept I would add to the above, it would be the the principle of illegality. That is, the mass killing must have been done in violation of accepted laws. I know the word “murderer” by definition refers to an unlawful killing, but I’d like to make that explicit: to be a mass murderer one’s actions must violate a recognized and binding law. So, if you’ll indulge me for a moment, let’s look at the relevant legal documents and precedents to see if what Bush has done to the Iraqi people (using the US Military as his instrument of choice) qualifies.
Murder or Self Defense?
The first objection I expect any Bush supporter (and perhaps a few who don’t support him as well) would be that murder requires that the killing in question be illegal, i.e., against the provisions of some specified legal code or authority. We can all think of situations where killing is justified (in a legal sense), even mass killings that result from war. However, for that to be the case, the justification must be one that is recognized under the law.
When it comes to war, international law, laws to which the United States is bound by treaties duly approved by the Senate as required in our Constitution, is quite clear. The principle legal document regarding the legality of acts of war is the United Nation’s Charter, and here are its relevant provisions [Note: for those of you whose eyes glaze over when confronted with legalese, you can skip ahead to my summary of what it all means if you prefer]:
PREAMBLE
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, 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 FOR THESE ENDS
to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest …
HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS […]
CHAPTER I
Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles. […]
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. […]
CHAPTER VII
Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security. […]
Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions.
Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by land, sea or air forces of the United Nations. […]
To briefly summarize the above, the UN Charter requires that the use of military force by any member (and the US is one of the founding members of the United Nations) against another sovereign state must be authorized by the Security Council (with only one exception which I’ll get to presently). It’s simple really. In the aftermath of two horrendous world wars which led to the deaths of tens of millions of civilians and soldiers alike, the nations who signed the UN Charter wanted to limit future outbreaks of war to those the world community itself agreed were unavoidable and necessary. They wanted to limit naked acts of aggression such as the wars Japan and Germany had initiated in the 1930’s and 40’s in Asia and Europe, respectively.
Indeed, the language of the UN Charter parallels the principles enunciated at the Nuremberg Tribunal (and also at the war crimes tribunal where Japanese leaders were tried), that “wars of aggression” are crimes against humanity for which responsible individuals may be held accountable and punished, a principle that was explicitly adopted by the International Law Commission of the United Nations, as authorized by General Assembly Resolution 177:
Principle VI
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
1. 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; ii. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i). […]
What is a war of aggression?
That is best understood in the context of the only exception in the UN Charter to a member state’s use of military force without the Security Council’s authorization, an exception which is spelled out in Article 51:
Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security…
In short, a war of aggression is any war not fought for the purposes of defending your country from an enemy’s attack. Just as at the common law, and under most criminal codes, a killer can claim self-defense as justification for homicide, so also may a nation justify it’s use of military force to defend itself from an “armed attack.” In other words, you don’t need the UN Security Council’s permission to protect your country from the acts of aggression by an enemy against your citizens, territories or military forces.
But isn’t that what Bush did: protected the country from the threat of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction?
Um, no. Our country was neither under attack when we invaded Iraq, nor was their any sign that Saddam’s regime posed an imminent threat to our nation which justified a pre-emptive strike, because not even Bush claimed that Iraq was planning to wage war against the United States at the time we invaded. The mere possession or suspected possession of WMD, alone is not a justification for war. If it were, every country on earth would be justified in attacking the United States because we do possess such weaponry.
Article 51 of the Charter is quite specific on this point: a country must either be under attack, or at the least, must have evidence that its enemy is about to attack. And that’s the broadest interpretation of what Article 51 allows. So, Bush cannot claim that invading and occupying Iraq was justified under any inherent right of self defense.
What about the UN Resolutions?
Bush cannot claim that the Security Council authorized the United States to use military force against Saddam’s regime to enforce Security Council resolutions regarding mandatory inspections, because none of those resolutions gave that authority to the United States. This lack of any justification for the war was pointed out by then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan expressly stated in an interview with the BBC, in September, 2004, that the US invasion of Iraq was had not been authorized by the Security Council, and was illegal under the provisions of the UN Charter:
The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.
He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally. […]
“I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time – without UN approval and much broader support from the international community,” he added.
He said he believed there should have been a second UN resolution following Iraq’s failure to comply over weapons inspections.
And it should have been up to the Security Council to approve or determine the consequences, he added.
When pressed on whether he viewed the invasion of Iraq as illegal, he said: “Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal.”
But did Bush intend to violate the UN Charter?
Another traditional prerequisite for a murder charge is the element of intent. Generally, a person cannot be convicted of deliberate murder unless he knew and understood that his actions would be wrong or illegal. This is the basis for for the infamous “insanity defense” whereby a person who can prove he/she was “insane” at the time the victim was killed can escape criminal liability for that killing.
Unfortunately for Bush, he cannot claim that he lacked knowledge that his “war of choice” against Iraq was illegal, because the British government’s legal advisers had already informed Tony Blair that second a resolution from the Security Council was needed in order to legitimize the planned invasion of Iraq and and overthrow of Saddam’s regime.
Certainly that conclusion was communicated to Blair’s government by Elizabeth Wilmshurst, deputy legal adviser to the British Foreign Office, who resigned her position on March 18, 2003 because she deemed the invasion of Iraq an illegal act of aggressive war:
1. I regret that I cannot agree that it is lawful to use force against Iraq without a second Security Council resolution to revive the authorisation given in SCR 678. I do not need to set out my reasoning; you are aware of it.
[The following italicised section was removed by the Foreign Office but later obtained by Channel 4 News]
My views accord with the advice that has been given consistently in this office before and after the adoption of UN security council resolution 1441 and with what the attorney general gave us to understand was his view prior to his letter of 7 March. (The view expressed in that letter has of course changed again into what is now the official line.)
I cannot in conscience go along with advice – within the Office or to the public or Parliament – which asserts the legitimacy of military action without such a resolution, particularly since an unlawful use of force on such a scale amounts to the crime of aggression; nor can I agree with such action in circumstances which are so detrimental to the international order and the rule of law.
Her reference to the views of the British Attorney General “prior to his letter of 7 March” that, without a resolution from the Security Council explicitly authorizing military action, the invasion of Iraq could be deemed illegal is explained here:
Tony Blair was told by the government’s most senior law officer in a confidential minute less than two weeks before the war that British participation in the American-led invasion of Iraq could be declared illegal.
Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, spelt out to Mr Blair the dangers of Britain going to war without a second resolution. It is understood that he then went on to warn that British soldiers could be hauled before the International Criminal Court. …]
In a legal opinion which Mr Blair has repeatedly sought to conceal, the attorney warned the prime minister that Britain might be able argue it could go to war on the basis of past UN resolutions, but only if there were “strong factual grounds” that Iraq was still in breach of its disarmament obligations.
Lord Goldsmith’s 13-page minute was sent to Mr Blair on March 7 2003. That very day, Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, declared that Iraq had made “substantial” progress in destroying its long-range missiles, and that he had found no evidence of biological or chemical weapons.
Blair and Bush were thus fully aware that “their preventive war” would probably be held illegal, unless they obtained a second UN resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. Nonetheless, they had already determined that they would invade even if the Security Council refused to authorize war against Iraq. In short, can you say premeditation?
Tony Blair told President George Bush that he was “solidly” behind US plans to invade Iraq before he sought advice about the invasion’s legality and despite the absence of a second UN resolution, according to a new account of the build-up to the war published today.
A memo of a two-hour meeting between the two leaders at the White House on January 31 2003 – nearly two months before the invasion – reveals that Mr Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second UN resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme. […]
The meeting between Mr Bush and Mr Blair, attended by six close aides, came at a time of growing concern about the failure of any hard intelligence to back up claims that Saddam was producing weapons of mass destruction in breach of UN disarmament obligations. It took place a few days before the then US secretary Colin Powell made claims – since discredited – in a dramatic presentation at the UN about Iraq’s weapons programme.
Making the Case
Let’s connect the dots. Bush knew that the inspectors could find no evidence of any weapons of mass destruction. He knew (because Blair told him, and because Blair and Colin Powell had insisted on trying to obtain a second resolution from the Security Council) that any “preventative” war against Iraq would be considered a violation of International law, and of the UN Charter, in particular.
Thus, Bush knew that the war would be considered illegal and he went ahead with it anyway. In fact he even talked with Blair about ways to manufacture an excuse for the war by provoking a military response from Saddam to various US or UK actions:
The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein.
It doesn’t get anymore clear cut than that. Bush wanted to start a war, a war of aggression against Iraq, regardless of justification. And he did. A war that led to thousands upon thousands of Iraqi and American deaths. So don’t be afraid to use this term when describing Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld or anyone else who has helped them continue their policies of death and destruction in the Middle East. It’s a fair description, after all.
They really are Mass Murderers.
