A packed house observed War Crimes Tribunal in Feb. 1992
June 19, 2009
With all the occurrences in Iran taking the world headlines, two cover-ups have taken a back seat to Iranian
affairs. Once the situation in Iran becomes more complacent (most probabily because of punitive actions that will be taken
by the clerics in charge of the country), the subject of the two masquerades will still be with us, only at a lower level
of publicity.
The current administrations of the U.S. and Great Britain are stonewalling the issue of lying to the public
of both nations about the reasons for going to war against Iraq in 2003. On both sides of the Atlantic, despite previous statements
of an open discussion, Obama and Britain’s Prime Minister Gordon Brown, are holding under wraps information that could
implicate many people in blatant war crimes activities.
Obama’s excuse is a great sham. He has stopped the publication of pictures of U.S. military personnel
torturing Iraqis. In addition, he has blocked the issuing of memos that would implicate many in the bogus buildup to the March
2003 invasion. In Obama’s case, he is sheltering those who have been the most outspoken critics of his administration:
neocon Republicans. All the time he has been keeping Dick Cheney from public scrutiny, Cheney has made public statements condemning
Obama’s security measures. If Obama ever possessed a backbone, it has surely been a victim of atrophy since he took
the oath of office in January 2009.
Gordon Brown is also keeping locked a public and open inquiry into British lies that led to the U.S.-Britain
alliance in destroying Iraq. The British public, press, and politicians of all parties are asking for an in-depth report on
the shenanigans the British government pulled in 2002 and 2003 to con the public into mildly accepting an invasion of Iraq.
It’s great that the public of the two nations want to know the truth. But, the reason for asking for
an open look at these documents seems to be off-base. Most people say that an honest look at the period will help insure that
something like this does not happen again.
Jonathan Steele wrote a brilliant article on the British cover-up on June 15, 2009 called "Skewed and in Secret,
this Iraqi Inquiry Is a Scandal." He gives many details of Brown’s deceit. However, he concluded:
My own view is that an account-settling inquiry is not the best route to follow. It would probably discourage
witnesses from being candid or providing documentation. It would give an essentially punitive air to proceedings and lead
at best to buck-passing between officials and ministers, and at worst to a media-stimulated search for heads to roll. The
wider issue is to ensure that Britain enters no such "war of choice" again. For that to happen, it is better to concentrate
on understanding how and why the government made a judgment that most British people consider to have been flawed.
Despite Steele’s astute reporting on the subject, I find his statement, "The wider issue is to insure
that Britain enters no such 'war of choice’ again," to be flawed. It’s time to stop using the excuse that
the truth will stop future illegal and despicable ventures. The reason for such inquiries should be to prove the guilt of
those who created the situation and bring them to justice. Once this occurs, future leaders will have second thoughts about
illegally attacking developing nations if they think they may swing from the end of a noose.
Take the cases of Bush and Blair and their cronies who took glee in killing more than a million Iraqis and
destroying the nation’s history and culture in the 2003 invasion and occupation. Many have written their memoirs and
are bragging of their activities. Something seems wrong here. The killers become heroes and the victims are buried in graves.
In most Western societies, if a person persuades someone to murder a family and the truth emerges, the one
who prompted the person who pulled the trigger is just as responsible as the killer. In such instances, I have yet to read
where a judge tells the killer and accomplice, "Well, we all learned from this lesson. Don’t do it again." Why can the
law of the land of Britain and the U.S. be different for the elected leaders?
The excuse that we may learn from the experience and think twice before doing it again is bogus. Take Grenada,
then Panama, then Iraq, then Somalia, then Serbia, then Iraqi again. People of the left, after the truth emerged from each
military incursion, took pride in getting the word out and then became complacent thinking it would never happen again. The
difference in each instance is that not only did it happen again, but it happened on a grander scale.
The press was irate when it was kept away from Grenada for days. "Never again," said media personnel. "Never
again" occurred in Panama in 1989 and then in Iraq in 1991. The press kept complaining, yet did nothing about it.
Then, in 2003, the U.S. administration said that the press would be allowed to follow the action. What occurred
was worse than having no press coverage. The "imbedded" reporters had to have their stories authorized by the U.S. military
before they could post them. What we read about was the heroic U.S. military taking on the Iraqi savages and teaching them
a lesson. Fortunately, a few independent journalists defied the U.S. ban on un-imbedded reporters and did give us some idea
of the truth. But, most of their stories were rejected by the mainstream press because the U.S. administration warned them
about printing "anti-American" stories. Plus, the U.S. bombed the offices of Al-Jazeera News in Afghanistan and Iraq. This
was to make an example of media outlets the U.S. did not admire.
There is no excuse for saying that the main reason for the truth to emerge is to make sure the same does not
happen again. It always does.
Currently, there are a few war crimes tribunals in operation, most concerning little-known individuals from
tiny African republics. They do not have the same propaganda machine as the leaders of the Western nations.
When the world has in place an organization with teeth that would indict and insure the attendance in a court
room of George Bush I and II, Bill Clinton, Dick Cheney, Madeleine Albright, Barack Obama, Don Rumsfeld, Colin Powell and
many others who are accomplices to murder, we would see a complete turnaround in military actions. Maybe war would become
obsolete. But, it is more likely to continue with the status quo. The last lines of the great movie, "The Grand Illusion,"
by Jean Renoir say it all. Two French POWs escaped a German World War I prison camp. With Germans chasing them, they made
it to the Swiss border, a neutral country. They were safe, temporarily. One asked the other what would happen and was told
that they would make their way back to France and be assigned to another unit and then go back into battle. The other asked,
"Wouldn’t it be nice if there was no war?" to which his comrade replied, "What are you, an illusionist?"
We are living the Grand Illusion in a much more severe way than Jean Renoir could have imagined.
Many people speak of the lies that led to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. However, a great number of people
forget, or are not aware, that the same propaganda campaign preceded the 1991 destruction of Iraq by the U.S. Same lies, same
story line, same results.
Former U.S. Attorney-General Ramsey Clark came about as close as anyone to bringing justice to the perpetrators
of the 1991 massacre. He formed an International War Crimes Tribunal that received much publicity in the world, except in
the U.S. media. Although he had a representative group of judges and witnesses, and went to great lengths to convene this
Tribunal, those found guilty had to pay no price. The following is from my book, The Mother of All Battles: The Endless
U.S.-Iraq War. Clark did not hold the trial to insure that the same mistakes would not occur in the future. He organized
the event to call out publicly the names and crimes of those involved.
America’s Best Kept Secret
The most powerful forces in Desert Storm were not the bombs or missiles dropped on Iraq. Without firing a
shot, the U.S. media ensured the country’s destruction. Their acquiescence to U.S. government demands stopped all discussion
of a negotiated settlement of the crisis. Schwarzkopf said it all on the day after the cease-fire. At a press conference,
he laughed as he told the journalists, "You printed everything just the way we said it."
If the media tried to find the truth, or gave both sides a chance to be heard, there is a possibility that
there would not have been a Desert Storm. The U.S. public had no idea why Iraq went into Kuwait or the history of the area.
To this day, because of biased media coverage, the American public, for the most part, thinks Saddam Hussein was attempting
to take over the world.
During Desert Shield, the buildup to the massacre, there was much talk about impending military action. For
months, we heard many voices, however, those who supported military action dominated the debate. Occasionally, an opponent
of a military solution was given a chance to speak, but the message was usually negated by the moderators of radio and TV
shows.
Politicians told the U.S. public outrageous lies about the situation. The press was remiss in challenging
these untruths, so more and bigger lies followed. The media, the military, politicians and administration officials were exempt
from having to tell the truth.
It would take thousands of pages to chronicle the deficiencies of the media in their lapdog role during Desert
Shield and Desert Storm, but one portion of history was ignored by the U.S. press — former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey
Clark’s formation of a war crimes tribunal and the following trial and judgement against the U.S. government.
In February 1991, Ramsey Clark visited Iraq during the height of allied bombing. He did not see a pretty sight.
Clark returned with much videotape and tales of horror of Iraq’s civilian population being bombed, despite the U.S.
government’s denial. U.S. television stations did not show any videotape and Clark’s message went unheard and
unseen.
Shortly after the cease-fire, Clark formed a Commission of Inquiry to travel to Iraq to see if there was enough
evidence to put the U.S. government on trial for war crimes and crimes against peace. The Commission found a wealth of evidence
and returned to the U.S.
For the next nine months, Clark and various members of the Commission traveled worldwide to gather further
evidence of war crimes. The results were overwhelming. People came forward to give evidence of atrocities perpetrated against
Iraq’s population, its military, the environment, and citizens of other countries. Whenever the Commission took evidence,
whether in Europe, Asia, Africa or the Middle East, the media of many countries were in attendance. Despite the large attendance
at meetings, the U.S. media were absent.
On February 29, 1992, in New York City, the International War Crimes Tribunal convened to try George Bush,
Dan Qualye, James Baker, Dick Cheney, William Webster, Colin Powell, Norman Schwarzkopf and others on 19 charges of crimes
against peace, crimes against humanity, and other criminal acts and high crimes. The Martin Luther King High School auditorium
was filled to capacity (more than 1,500) and many others lined up outside to hear the proceedings over loudspeakers. The broadcast
media of various countries carried the trial live, but, despite the attendance and international coverage, U.S. press disregarded
the event.
The panel consisted of 21 people from assorted countries and it ruled on the following 19 counts:
- The U.S. engaged in a pattern of conduct beginning in or before 1989 intended to lead Iraq into provocations
justifying U.S. military action against Iraq and permanent U.S. military domination of the Gulf.
- President Bush from August 2, 1990, intended to prevent any interference to his plan to destroy Iraq militarily
and economically.
- President Bush ordered the destruction of facilities essential to civilian life and economic productivity
in Iraq.
- The U.S. intentionally bombed and destroyed civilian life, commercial and business districts, schools, hospitals,
mosques, churches, shelters, residential areas, historical sites, private vehicles and civilian government offices.
- The U.S. intentionally bombed indiscriminately throughout Iraq.
- The U.S. intentionally bombed and destroyed Iraqi personnel, used excessive force, killed soldiers seeking
to surrender and in disorganized flight, often unarmed and far from any combat zones and randomly and wantonly killed Iraqi
soldiers and destroyed materiel after the cease-fire.
- The U.S. used prohibited weapons capable of mass destruction and inflicting indiscriminate death and unnecessary
suffering against both military and civilian targets.
- The U.S. intentionally attacked installations in Iraq containing dangerous substances and forces.
- President Bush ordered U.S. forces to invade Panama resulting in the deaths of 1,000 to 4,000 Panamanians
and the destruction of thousands of private dwellings, public buildings and commercial structures.
- President Bush obstructed justice and corrupted United Nations functions as a means of power to commit crimes
against peace and war crimes.
- President Bush usurped the Constitutional power of Congress as a means of securing power to commit crimes
against peace, war crimes and other high crimes.
- The U.S. waged war on the environment.
- President Bush encouraged and aided Shi’ite Muslims and Kurds to rebel against the government of Iraq
causing fratricidal violence, emigration, exposure, hunger and sickness, and thousands of deaths. After the rebellion failed,
the U.S. invaded and occupied parts of Iraq without authority in order to increase division and hostility within Iraq.
- President Bush intentionally deprived the Iraqi people of essential medicine, potable water, food and other
necessities.
- The U.S. continued its assault on Iraq after the cease-fire, invading and occupying at will.
- The U.S. has violated and condoned violations of human rights, civil liberties and the U.S. Bill of Rights
in the U.S., in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere to achieve its purpose of military domination.
- The U.S., having destroyed Iraq’s economic base, demands reparations which will permanently impoverish
Iraq and threaten its people with famine and epidemic.
- President Bush systematically manipulated, controlled, directed, misinformed and restricted press and media
coverage to obtain constant support in the media for his military and political goals.
- The U.S. has by force secured a permanent military presence in the Gulf, the control of its oil resources
and geopolitical domination of the Arabian Peninsula and the Gulf region.
When the trial concluded, there was a verdict. According to the Commission of Inquiry for the International
War Crimes Tribunal:
The Tribunal panel concluded an afternoon of testimony by finding U.S. President George Bush and his associates
and allies guilty of war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity. They based this decision on clear violations
of international law. The Tribunal panelists included internationally-known civil rights activists, legal workers and freedom
fighters. Some have served in the governments of their countries, others in prisons; some have done both. They reflect a diversity
of cultures, nationalities and ideologies. When it came time to vote a judgement, they were unanimous. The crowd broke into
shouting and applause as Attorney Deborah Jackson of the U.S. read the verdict: Guilty on all 19 counts of war crimes.
How could a trial held in the U.S. against the U.S. government be ignored by the press? The subject alone
should have piqued the media’s curiosity. The blackout was not due to lack of notice from the International War Crimes
Tribunal — many press releases were sent and many phone calls were made in an attempt to gain publicity.
I tried to discover why there was a lack of coverage. First, I talked to Irv Cass, news director of Channel
39, and NBC affiliate in San Diego, California. He explained, "There could be a variety of reasons why we didn’t cover
it. We get news from a variety of sources, such as AP, NBC Network and CNN."
Could AP (Associated Press), the agency from which thousands of television stations, radio stations, and newspapers
gain their information be the culprit? According to Adrianne Weil Parks of the AP office in New York, the AP has a clean record
on this issue. She said, "Sure. I put all their (Tribunal) stuff on the wire. Believe me, I’ve put them out."
Three major wire services (AP, UPI and Reuters) were given much information from the Tribunal. UPI admitted
to receiving the information, but could not verify if it was sent over the wires. Reuters did send the story. According to
Art Spiegleman of Reuters, "We sent out the story a couple of days before it (the trial) took place."
At least two of the three major wire services announced the War Crimes Tribunal, leaving the media one less
excuse for not running the story. Paul Ahuja was the press director for the Tribunal. He mentioned some publications that
did not cover the story because of its controversial nature. Ahuja recalled a conversation with Sidney Schanberg of Newsday
in which Schanberg told him, "I can’t cover this story. I’d get fired."
The New York Times was just as squeamish. Staff at the publication told Ahuja, "This story is editorial
suicide."
Ramsey Clark was critical of the press coverage of Desert Storm and the lack of coverage of the Tribunal.
He said, "The press has totally defaulted. It began with Grenada." His reference of Grenada alluded to the U.S. government’s
blackout of press coverage of the invasion of the island by U.S. forces in 1983. Clark added, "They (the press) complained
for a while, but they soon forgot."
During Desert Storm, Clark was vocal about his opposition; however, he and many other opponents were totally
shut out by the media. Clark said, "The press led the American people to celebrate a slaughter."
Clark called the media remiss in attempting to get the facts. He stated:
The morning of January 15, 1991 was the saddest moment for American journalism. There, at the cashier’s
desk (at the Al-Rashid Hotel in Baghdad), checking out were the journalists. Here you have the press, whose duty it was to
cover the facts for the public, checking out.
According to Clark, the journalists used the excuse of imminent danger for their exit. He said, "It’s
like a fireman saying, 'Hell, that’s a big fire. I’m not going in there.’"
The Mother of All Battles is available. To
order, please click on this link:
|