June 18, 2005

Background

Consider the sorts of weapons that international law generally prohibits: unconventional weapons used to attack the civilian population of a country, either directly or indirectly by leaving behind hazardous remnants.

One example of such heinous weapons are those enriched with depleted uranium left over from either nuclear weapons or nuclear reactors. The U.S. has used D.U. enriched weapons for over a decade, in the first Gulf War, in Kosovo and the Balkans, in the U.S. war in Afghanistan, and again most recently in Iraq.

The problem with D.U. enriched weapons ( http://cntodd.blogspot.com/2005/03/depleted-uranium-us-war-c

rime.html ) is that the depleted uranium spreads out over a wide area upon impact and then sinks to the ground as a heavy dust. The result has been devastating environmental damage. After the invasion, some hot spots in downtown Baghdad registered 1,000 to 2,000 times higher than normal background radiation levels.

At some locations in Iraq where the U.S. used D.U. weapons during the first Gulf War, doctors have identified a dramatic rise in both cancer and birth defects. In addition, many suspect that what is now known as “Gulf War Syndrome” is in fact the result of soldiers being expose to D.U. dust while serving in Iraq.

The effects of D.U. on a community can be long term. But other abhorrent weapons can affect a civilian population swiftly and immediately. For example, incendiary weapons such as white phosphorous ammunitions create a dense white smokescreen and burn intensely. When such ammunitions impact in close range to human targets, the burning particles will imbed in the skin. And burning white phosphorus cannot be extinguished simply by hosing it with water, but rather requires a complete smothering.

Such incendiaries have been prohibited by the 1980 Protocol III of the Geneva Convention – a protocol which the U.S. has refused to ratify to this day, despite general international agreement.

Reports from Iraq indicate that the U.S. has used white phosphorus in the current conflict. According to the San Francisco Chronicle ( http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/11/

10/MNG6P9P3ER1.DTL ) , the siege which flattened Fallujah in November 2004 involved the use of phosphorus weapons:

Some artillery guns fired white phosphorous rounds that create a screen of fire that cannot be extinguished with water. Insurgents reported being attacked with a substance that melted their skin, a reaction consistent with white phosphorous burns.

Kamal Hadeethi, a physician at a regional hospital, said, "The corpses of the mujahedeen which we received were burned, and some corpses were melted."

And independent journalist Dahr Jamail ( http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives//000173.php ) wrote that citizens in Fallujah he interviewed described bombs that exploded into large fires that burned flesh and could not be put out with water.

Between the D.U. enhanced weapons and the evidence of phosphorous ammunitions in Fallujah, it seems difficult to deny that the U.S. persists in using weapons that constitute criminal acts against humanity.

Napalm

Yesterday we learned that the U.S. may have used – or may still be using – another United Nations banned horror: Napalm. According to The Independent ( http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=64

7397 ) , the U.S. used 30 MK77 firebombs – a new generation of incendiary weapons - during the initial Iraqi invasion between March 31 and April 2 2003.

Like white phosphorus ammunitions, napalm has a strategic role when used against civilian populations. Napalm not only produces a sticky burning gel that adheres to the skin as it burns through, leading to loss of blood pressure and eventually death in a short period of time, but it also releases clouds of carbon monoxide that can kill by asphyxiation. (Everyone will remember the Pulitzer Prize winning photograph of the naked girl in Vietnam, running down the road screaming as her skin burned with napalm.)

In 2001, with great fanfare, the U.S. Navy operations at Fallbrook Weapons Station in San Diego County sent the “last” of the U.S.’s Vietnam-era napalm to be incinerated at plants in Texas and Louisiana. At the time, the Navy claimed ( http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/04/04/

MN201419.DTL&hw=napalm&sn=001&sc=1000 ) that this was the last of the military’s supply of napalm. It was the end of a wartime horror, or so we thought.

But right after the March 2003 invasion, a report surfaced in Australia’s Sydney Morning Herald ( http://reg.smh.com.au/login.do?status=FAIL&errMsg=&errCode=1

0001&site=SMH&server=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.smh.com.au&data=%2Fart ... ) which stated that a U.S. officer had told the paper that napalm had in fact been dropped on Iraq. A Navy spokesman denied this claim, saying once again that the U.S. military no longer had any napalm in its supplies.

But in August, the San Diego Union-Tribune ( http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030805-firebombs

01.htm ) was able to confirm that napalm bombs had been dropped on Baghdad as U.S. troops prepared to capture the city. In that article, Union-Tribune wrote:

Marine Corps fighter pilots and commanders who have returned from the war zone have confirmed dropping dozens of incendiary bombs near bridges over the Saddam Canal and the Tigris River. The explosions created massive fireballs.

"We napalmed both those (bridge) approaches," said Col. James Alles in a recent interview. He commanded Marine Air Group 11, based at Miramar Marine Corps Air Station, during the war. "Unfortunately, there were people there because you could see them in the (cockpit) video.”

"...It's no great way to die," he added. How many Iraqis died, the military couldn't say. No accurate count has been made of Iraqi war casualties.

Yesterday’s story in The Independent ( http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=64

7397 ) not only confirms that a new generation of incendiary weapons have been used in Iraq, but that U.S. officials also lied about their use to British officials.

In January, the British Defense Minister Adam Ingram offered his assurances to members of Parliament that no new napalm weapons had been used by the U.S. during the Iraq invasion. Indeed, Mr. Ingram made such statements based upon assertions made to him by U.S. officials. But in a letter written to a Labor MP, Ingram wrote:

I regret to say that I have since discovered that this is not the case and must now correct the position.

This admission raises grave questions now about whether or not the U.S. in fact used such incendiary weapons for the siege against Fallujah – claims that the U.S. has denied all along. If the U.S. did in fact use this new generation of napalm bombs, they would have violated the 1980 weapons convention – a protocol ratified by the U.K., but not by the U.S.

Mike Lewis, a spokesman for The Iraq Analysis Group issued the following statement:

“The US has used internationally reviled weapons that the UK refuses to use, and has then apparently lied to UK officials, showing how little weight the UK carries in influencing American policy."

He added: "Evidence that Mr Ingram had given false information to Parliament was publicly available months ago. He has waited until after the election to admit to it - a clear sign of the Government's embarrassment that they are doing nothing to restrain their own coalition partner in Iraq."

The Consequences

There remains little doubt that the U.S. has knowingly committed crimes against humanity in Iraq, crimes that they actively tried to keep from public knowledge.

D.U., white phosphorus, and the new generation of napalm all constitute weapons of mass destruction – weapons whose effects cannot be made precise, whose impact covers a wide area, and in the case of D.U., will remain for generations after the conflict is over.

It is now time for the international community to hold the White House and the Pentagon responsible. In particular, those in the Bush administration and the top ranks of the military who approved the use of such weapons and then knowingly lied about it need to be help accountable. Our leaders need to know that we the citizens of the United State do not support the use of chemical weapons in any fashion and categorically abhor the enrichment of ammunitions with depleted uranium.

And if the U.S. will not take responsibility for its actions, then the international community needs to hold them accountable.

:: Article nr. 12748 sent on 19-jun-2005 02:08 ECT

:: The address of this page is : www.uruknet.info?p=12748

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------