The UN says... War Crime!

I think most of us felt this way anyway, but a 45-page report issued at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva says it again.

The top human rights official for the United Nations said Friday that the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners by American soldiers could constitute a war crime, and he called for the immediate naming of an international figure to oversee the situation.

The official, Bertrand Ramcharan, the acting high commissioner for human rights, acknowledged that the removal of Saddam Hussein represented "a major contribution to human rights in Iraq" and noted that the United States had condemned abusive conduct by its troops and pledged to bring violators to justice.

"Everyone accepts the good intentions of the coalition governments as regards the behavior of their forces in Iraq," he said in a 45-page report issued at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva.

But Mr. Ramcharan said that after the occupation of Iraq, "there have sadly been some violations of human rights committed by some coalition soldiers." Apparently in a reference to the incidents of abuse at Abu Ghraib prison and to cases where Iraqi prisoners have died in detention, he said "willful killing, torture and inhuman treatment" represented a "grave breach" of international law and "might be designated as war crimes by a competent tribunal."

He said it was a "stark reality" that there was no international oversight or accountability for the thousands of detainees, the conditions in which they were held and the manner in which they were treated. To correct this situation, he said, the occupation authorities should immediately appoint "an international ombudsman or commissioner." That person would be charged with monitoring human rights in Iraq and producing periodic reports on "compliance by coalition forces with international norms of human rights and humanitarian law."

Hopefully this helps put to rest one of the dumbest arguement I've heard in regard to the whole thing, that what we did was nothing compared to what Saddam did, so we shouldn't be that upset about it. Clearly what we did, justified or not, removed a dictator and did wonders for peoples rights in Iraq. However, just because we are liberators does not mean we can, in turn, destroy the rights we were hoping to instill. It may be sad and unintentional, but it still has occurred. A crime is held up to the same light, not to other crimes.

So please stop using that argument. Thank you

The report did have some positives for us, too:

As gains for human rights since the invasion, it listed freer speech, open political debate and greater participation by women in public life. "One should take into account in weighing what has happened in Iraq the prospects that, as a result of the actions of the coalition governments, Iraq could well be launched on the road to democracy, the rule of law and governance that is respectful of human rights," the report said.