Home | About | Donate

Backing MSF, Human Rights Watch Says US Must Consent to War Crimes Probe


#1


#2

"Must", is it? To paraphrase one J. Stalin's question: How many army divisions does HRW have?


#4

US gov submitt to a war crimes investigation? Fat chance---our leaders would suffer the fate of the Nazi's


#5

#8

Sure it was a criminal act. Where were these guys on the shock and awe night when Bush bombed Baghdad and killed 7500 civilians? And where were they during all the uncountably many atrocities that followed? Why now?


#9

Good question. HRW pushed the intervention in Libya which in and of itself a warcrime. It seems to me the directors of HRW are concerned they lose credibility and are simply seen by many as an extension of the US Government so wish to be seen as Neutral.

HRW has sitting on its board of advisors ex CIA officials and there has been a revolving door of directors of HRW going to work for the State Department and vice versa.


#10

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#11

No one (person or nation) trusts the United States. If if wants to lead and use its power for good, as government officials say they want to, the US has to admit its mistakes.


#12

I spent enough time in unique environments to know how this all works and I'd believe Bush/Cheney was legally elected before I'd believe today's United States military didn't deliberately target a hospital. The souls of America's, once honorable men and women, have been corrupted in a way that threatens us all.


#14

And not only admit its mistakes but accept responsibility for them and learn from them to avoid repeating.


#15

The truth is not going to come from any investigation the U. S. officially cooperates in. My money is that the blame for this outrage goes all the way to the top. If not to Obama, then at least to the SecDef level. The big guys are never going to pay a price for the killing of innocents. This was done because DWB refuses to take sides and treats all who show up at their door. The U. S. can't abide a neutral party giving aid to it's enemies.


#16

For one thing, because hospitals are considered humanitarian zones and neutral. There are rules to war, and another one of them was not to shoot at journalists.

Killing is of course wrong. But even the rationale behind all the war-sponsored killing falls into particular categories and bombing or droning hospitals represents the lowest tier of immorality.


#17

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/6/11/debate_is_human_rights_watch_too

One of many. You can dig further into it by using searches on names referenced in transcript. The key point in the debate is HRW operates under a 100 million dollar grant from the Soros foundation. George Soros is no Human rights champion. This guy makes money off misery and conflict.

https://nacla.org/news/2014/2/4/hypocrisy-human-rights-watch


#19

It's a step and hopefully will result, someday, in some justice. However, this is rather like pointing to a wet spot while ignoring an ocean.

Everything since the first attack on Afghanistan, and everything which has followed, has been, was, and is a war crime or collection of war crimes, for this reason:
The attack on Afghanistan, and the later invasion of Iraq, both qualify as wars of aggression.

Not only that, both were based on lies, most importantly on the truly diabolic, heinous set of lies about the cause of the September 11, 2001 disaster, and later, of course, the WMD lies.

For those who would argue with that assessment, I would direct them to the many reports, some with graphic photographs or video, which have come out of those two countries since 2001. Here are just a few examples: the Collateral Murder video, the reports of pissing on corpses, beating prisoners to death, torture, collective punishment, Abu Gharib (however it's spelled), the revolting, horrifying Gore for Porn photographs sent from the war zones by U.S. soldiers, [some of which, if not all, which appear to be evidence of war crimes; last time I checked the archive is at Archive.org or some similar reserve].

That's just a small part of it.

The real difficulty is that it really seems that in the U.S., the war criminal element is allied with the justice system.

Also, the majority of American citizens are still emotionally invested, and in many cases financially invested, in the "global war on terror" because, among other reasons, they believe they are too smart and well-informed to investigate the reality of 9/11. They do not want to know what happened that day. Minds are made up, and are not willing to consider a change of mind.

This emotional state prevents the majority of Americans from caring so much about war crimes because, in effect, either directly or passively, they have cheered them on and asked for more.


#20

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.