There is now ample evidence pointing to the US condoning WAR CRIMES against Iraqi civilians. :disgust:
“…The Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives” Article 48, 1977 addition to the Geneva Conventions, Part IV
War Crimes and Iraq](http://www.counterpunch.org/hallinan11052004.html) Counterpunch 06 Nov 04
The above “Basic Rule” is at the heart of the Geneva Conventions, the international treaty that tries to be the thin line that separates civilization from savagery. It is not something the Bush Administration has paid much attention to as it goes about the “pacification” of Iraqi cities where local insurgents are resisting the American occupation.
Consider the following.
On Oct. 8, U.S. fighter bombers carried out what the Pentagon called a “precision strike” against “terrorist leaders” in Falluja, a sprawling city of 300,000 west of Baghdad. For the past two months Falluja has been the target of a bombing campaign. According to the New York Times, **the attack wounded 17 people, nine of whom were women and children. The victims were apparently from a wedding party that had just dispersed. The Times went on to quote a “senior Pentagon official” who said, “We know what the strike was supposed to hit and we hit it. If a wedding party was going on, well, it was in concert with a meeting of a top Zarqawi lieutenant.” **Zarqawi is a Jordanian who has claimed credit for numerous roadside bombings and assassinations in Iraq.
But according to Article 50 of the Conventions, “The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character.” In short, the attack violated the Conventions, and the “Pentagon official”—most likely Assistant Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz— should be arrested and tried for violating international law. Since the attack constituted a “grave breach” of the Conventions, the official could also be charged under the 1996 U.S. War Crimes Act.
In the same article, the Times also quoted a “senior Bush Administration official” as saying that the bombing was helpful for exploiting “fault lines” in Falluja, and that it would push the “citizenry” of Falluja to deny sanctuary and assistance to the insurgents, "adding “that’s a good thing.” The “official” might, indeed, think it was “a good thing,” but it also violated Article 51, which states: “The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack.”
A “Pentagon official” also told the Times: “If there are civilians dying in connection with these attacks, and with the destruction, the locals at some point have to make a decision. Do they want to harbor the insurgents and suffer the consequences that come with that?” In other words, terrify the civilian population into cooperating, a strategy that Article 51 explicitly forbids: “Acts or threats of violence, the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population, are prohibited.” … Full Article](http://www.counterpunch.org/hallinan11052004.html)