Opinion Crimes permissible and impermissible By Douglas Lummis	フレームで見る  英文をプリントする  脚注をプリントする
許せる犯罪と許せない犯罪の境界線 イラク侵攻が国際法に反する犯罪であることを証明する極秘文書が発見された。 これこそが「許せない犯罪」ではないのか？

Did you read about the Secret Downing Street Memo, printed in the Sunday Times on May 1 this year? It contains a summary of a July 23, 2002, meeting of the British Prime Minister Tony Blair with some of his chief advisors to discuss plans to make war on Iraq. It begins, "This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents." All of us have a genuine need to know its contents, so it's good that the Sunday Times printed it.

At the meeting, one of the members, just back from Washington, reported that the U.S. government had already made up its mind to attack Iraq. The key sentences, which have got some British MPs and U.S. Congressmen quite upset, are the following: "Military action was seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

There it is, folks, the so-called "smoking gun." The policy decided; the "facts" to be arranged later. This is a clear statement of the intention of the U.S. government to lie, and of the willingness of the British government to participate in that lie — which, indeed, is what they did. We watched them do it. Bush lied, Blair lied, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell lied for hours before the U.N. Security Council. And on the basis of those lies they started a war, killing thousands of people ― a war that is still going on today and that shows no sign of ending.

In another interesting passage, the Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith spoke on the possible legal basis for attacking Iraq: "The attorney-general said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible bases: self-defense, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorization. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult." In short, according to Great Britain's highest legal officer, the war would be illegal — which, indeed, it was.

My guess is that few readers are surprised by this. We are so benumbed by the behavior of our political leaders that it is hard to be shocked by anything they do. But remember, lying to the world, killing thousands in an illegal war — these are crimes of monstrous proportions. The people who committed them should be driven from office and thrown into prison. My choice would be Abu Ghraib.

Speaking of Abu Ghraib, did you read that the officer in charge of the prison while the torture was going on, former Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, has been punished and demoted to colonel? For dereliction of duty and shoplifting. Dereliction of duty is a vague charge, which doesn't refer directly to the torture. So apparently the military didn't find her supervision of a torture chamber a crime worth punishing. But shoplifting?! That is something they could not allow.

Shukan ST: June 24, 2005

(C) All rights reserved