First Abu Ghraib, now Guantanamo

The factor of evil in the Bush regime is a constant. The case against George W. Bush analyzed point by point

Several years ago, if someone had said that a state could perpetrate an act of mass murder in which tens of thousands of civilians were butchered, invade a sovereign nation using a casus belli based upon barefaced lies and forgery of documents and whose military forces could commit acts of rape, bullying, sodomy and sexual depravity on a shocking scale and then go on to commit acts of torture, one might have wondered whether such a report came from the annals of the Inquisition or Ancient Rome.

We are not speaking, however, of Tomas de Torquemada or of Caligula. Once again, this news item is about the acts perpetrated by US forces under the regime of George W. Bush and his clique of corporate elitists who not only spent 280 billion USD of their taxpayers’ money on their act of mass slaughter in Iraq but also broke practically every international law in the process.

On Monday, the President of the International Committee of the Red Cross, Jakob Kellenberger, spoke with George Bush. About what? Aid from the US government for the Red Cross? No. Pleasantries from two officials and mutual back-slapping? No.

It was about concerns from the Red Cross about acts of torture by US armed forces at the Guantanamo Bay concentration camp.

While President Bush maintains that the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay have been treated humanely, the ICRC states in a leaked report that practices at this camp were “tantamount to torture”.

The case against Bush, point by point

Let us examine point by point the case against George W. Bush, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the USA which perpetrated these crimes against humanity.

1. Under international law, detainees must be treated according to the rules and principles of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). Were all these norms respected at Abu Ghraib? No. And at Guantanamo? No.

Verdict: Guilty.

2. IHL prohibits the use of ill treatment and torture of prisoners. Were prisoners abused and tortured at Abu Ghraib? Yes. Were they deprived of sleep, beaten and forced to undergo diet change at Guantanamo? Yes.

Verdict: Guilty.

3. IHL prohibits the humiliation and degradation of detainees. Did this take place at Abu Ghraib? Yes. And at Guantanamo? Yes.

Verdict: Guilty.

4. IHL states clearly that detainees must have the right to contact their families. Did they have these rights at Abu Ghraib and at Guantanamo? No.

Verdict: Guilty.

5. IHL prohibits the use of cluster bombs or any other deployment of munitions that render the battle area dangerous after hostilities have ceased. Were such munitions deployed in Iraq in civilian areas? Yes.

Verdict: Guilty.

6. IHL states that “the parties to a conflict must at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants in order to spare the civilian population and civilian property”. Was this the case in Afghanistan? In Iraq? No.

Verdict: Guilty.

7. IHL states that attacks can only be made against military targets. In Iraq, were civilian structures targeted on purpose by US Armed Forces? Yes.

Verdict: Guilty.

8. IHL prohibits the killing or wounding of ex-combatants. Were ex-combatants killed or wounded by US Armed Forces in Iraq? Yes.

Verdict: Guilty.

9. IHL states that medical personnel and medical establishments must be spared during conflict. Did the US Armed Forces target medical establishments during the illegal act of butchery in Iraq? Yes.

Verdict: Guilty.

10. “Captured combatants and civilians who find themselves under the authority of the adverse party are entitled to respect for their lives”.
Does forced sodomy constitute respect? Maybe in the USA but not anywhere else.
Do sleep deprivation and beatings count as respect or “protection against all acts of violence or reprisal”? No.

Verdict: Guilty.

George W. Bush, his administration and the Armed Forces of the United States of America are hereby accused formally of crimes against International Humanitarian Law.

Is the world going to stand by as it did in the 1930s, allowing Hitler to try to dominate the planet? Or are those people who studied law going to do something about it in the proper forums of law? How about making a citizens’ arrest of George W. Bush if he dares to step off an aircraft anywhere outside the USA?