war machine affirmative [av]

7/31/2019 War Machine Affirmative [AV]

1/15

AVHSTHEIS TOC J/F 0

-INDE


2/15

AVHSTHEIS THE WARMACHINE J/F 0

I affirm. The act of submission is an unlikely political move as states normally show a lack of respect forinternational obligations: most treaty signatories establish sovereign reservations over treaties. This is noan act of submission, as control is not forfeited to an international institution. True submission means

accepting treaty conditions as binding. Submitting to the Rome Statute requires state parties to abide by thrules of the court as well as cooperate with court functions. Part 9 of the Statute requires all States Partieto ensure that there are procedures available under their national law for all of the forms of cooperationwhich are specified under this Part, and the Statute also requires the harmonization of domestic law withICC jurisdiction. This entails the establishment of two forms of legislation: complimentarity legislation andco-operation legislation. Some states have not fully submitted to the court because they have not enactedboth forms of legislation. Countries such as Colombia have enacted complimentarity legislation but notcooperation legislation, while others, like Japan, have enacted the latter but not the former. In this senseonly a handful of states (22) have truly submitted to the jurisdiction of the court.

Legal Information Institute clarifies what it means to submit to jurisdiction[Subject matter jurisdiction Legal InformationInstitute. Cornell University Law School. http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Subject_matter_jurisdiction]

A court must have jurisdiction to enter a valid, enforceable judgment on a claim.Jurisdiction may be broken down into two categories:personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction is the constitutional requirement that a defendant have certain minimum contacts with the foin which the court sitsso that the court may exercise power over the defendant. Subject-matter jurisdiction is therequirement that the court have power to hear the specific kind of claim that is brought to that court. While tparties may waive personal jurisdiction and submit to the authority of the court, theparties may not waive subject-matter jurisdiction.

The value is justice because the resolution questions the appropriate jurisdiction of institutions over acts war and crimes against humanity. The criterion is restraining the United States war machine. War is anecessary evil in the international arena. When engaging in military conduct, however, nations ought torestrain their military from using too much force, and should attempt to limit civilian casualties. Collateraldamage is a reality of war but states ought to take steps to minimize it when doing so requires slightadjustment of military policy.

1.) The attacking of civilians is an act of pure cruelty. War is generally undesirable because of thecasualties imposed, but harming innocents who need not be injured is a moral evil.

James A. Stroble [Excerpt from: The Ethics of War and the Uses of War. Ch 2. 1996]

Surely it is the helplessness of civilians that exempts them from attack, not the absence of such consent as might be imputed to aconscript who is shooting at another draftee. It is thought to be crueler to sack a town than to kill armed men, but not because civilians suffer more painor are moreinnocent. It is not only a pity or sense of justice that moves us.The sheer absence of courage also makes a cruel act naked,as it were. Without the courag

to overcome the fear of genuine dangers such as those that men face in battle, cruelty is unmitigated by acompensating virtue. There are no extenuations and no veils. It is pure, unalloyed cruelty. The character of those who loot and ravage and wdestroy women and children is one of enraged cruelty and nothing else.A brave soldier is simply a less repulsive character than a cowaone. An armed foe at least has a chance to assert himself, to force his opponent to an effort of courage. Hein short, neither as helpless nor as pitiable as an unarmed civilian.(7) It is not that attacks on noncombatants are cruel in contrast tothose on combatants. War is an arena of cruelty, and the only discrimination between these is the "nakedness" of cruelty to noncombatants. Thus this form of crueltyone that we can clearly recognize as being wrong, and deserving of censure. But this is only a difference of degree: war itself insofar as it is cruel, is deserving also ofcondemnation.The presence of compensating virtues may make the revulsion of war less, but no amount of compensation can change the fact that war is cruel.

-
http://www.aloha.net/~stroble/Noncombatant.html#N_7_http://www.aloha.net/~stroble/Noncombatant.html#N_7_


3/15


2.) The goal of war is to protect civilians through offensive military gain or self-defense. An agreementsafeguard innocents is a reciprocal interest and the underpinning of engaging in conflict

James A. Stroble 2 [Excerpt from: The Ethics of War and the Uses of War. Ch 2. 1996]

A more specific explanation for a general rule ofnoncombatant immunity stems from more partisan interests: the concern of any sidin a war to spare its own noncombatants from the harm and sufferingof being subject to attack.In some cases, this may in facbe the principal aim of the military action itself. But in war one is not able to provide a blanket of protection to one's own population, or at one that is sufficiently impenetrable.(15)Noncombatants, because they are unarmed and dependent upon others for their defense (or offense), are always vulnerable. this is as true of enemy noncombatants as it is of one's own. From a native concern with one's own, then, and the inevitable vulnerabilitof one's unarmed population in war, it becomes rational to agree with an enemy that both sides grantimmunity to the unarmed citizens of the other. This agreement, then, turns a personalconcern into a general rule of noncombatant immunFor Legal Positivists, indeed, only the existence of explicit agreement could establish noncombatant immunity. However, the reciprocal nature of such restraint in warprovides only a conditional basis for the rule. As Douglas P. Lackey says,

This is especially true of a democratic society where politicians can be voted out of office for excessivelyburdening the populace. Opening up the norm of noncombatant immunity will increase the vulnerability othe U.S. to war weariness and military defeat.

3.) Not showing military restraint also decreases the chance of peace negotiations which lengthensduration of conflict and increases dangerous militarism.

Roger B. Myerson [THE POWER OF RESTRAINT IN STRATEGIES OF CONFLICT AND PEACE Presented in Jerusalem on May 2008, as part of a panel on Challenges Facing Humanity. Tomorrow, in a conference organized by President Shimon Peres oIsrael]

The key is that a nation's security depends, not only on its resolve to maintain and use strong military forces, but also on reputation for restraint. If others see us as lacking resolve, they may be tempted to attack or intimidate us. But if we lose our reputation for restraint, thmay fear to make peace with us. So an effective deterrent strategy must combine both a threat to retaliate against aggression and a promise to reciprocate in cooper

Our forceful resolve makes our threats credible,but our restraint is equally essential for the credibility of our promises. If [others] ourneighbors believed only our resolve but not our restraint, they would fear to appease us, and for protection against us theywould sestronger militant leaders. So a military action that we intend as retaliation against aggression may insteadprovoke our adversaries to greater militancy, unless we credibly communicate the limited scope and precisepreconditions of our action.

My sole contention is that United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of the international criminal couin order to limit the recklessness of the U.S. war machine.

-
http://www.aloha.net/~stroble/Noncombatant.html#N_15_http://www.aloha.net/~stroble/Noncombatant.html#N_15_http://www.aloha.net/~stroble/Noncombatant.html#N_15_


4/15


A. The ICC would bar us from using illegal weapons that are dangerous to civilians.

Submitting to the jurisdiction of the ICC would limit the use of white phosphorus.

White phosphorous is a chemical weapon employed by the United States that is illegal.

George Monboit [Visiting Fellow of Environmental Science Oxford. A War Crime Within a War Crime Within A War Crime.November 22, 2005. ]

The Pentagon argues that white phosphorus burns people, rather than poisoning them, and is therefore covered only by the protocol on incendiary weapons, which th

has not signed. But white phosphorus is both incendiary and toxic. The gas it produces attacks the mucous membranes, the eyeand the lungs. As Peter Kaiser of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons told the BBC last week,If the toxic properties of white phosphothe caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because any chemicals used against humans or animals that charm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons.(4)The US army knows that its use as a weapon is illegal. In the Battle Book published by US Command and General Staff College at Fort LeavenwoKansas, my correspondent David Traynier found the following sentence. It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets.(5) Last night t

blogger Gabriele Zamparini found a declassified document from the US Department of Defense, dated April 1991 [reads], and titlePossible use of phosphorous chemical. During the brutal crackdown that followed the Kurdish uprising,it alleges, Iraqi forces loyal to President Saddam ((Hussein)) maypossibly used white phosphorous (WP) chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels and the populace in Erbil and Dohuk provinceIraq.The WP chemical was delivered by artillery rounds and helicopter gunships. These reports of possible WP chemical weapon attacks spread quickly hundredthousands of Kurds fled from these two areas(6). The Pentagon is in no doubt, in other words, that white phosphorus is a chemicweapon

These types of weapons are prohibited by the Rome Statute in articles:

8 (2) (b) [17] (xvii) Employing poison or poisoned weapons;

And

8 (2) (b) [18] (xviii) Employing asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases

The ICC has shown interest in investigating the use of white phosphorus.

Catherine Philp [Prosecutor looks at ways to put Israeli officers on trial for Gaza 'war crimes' The Times. February 2, 2009.http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5636069.ece]

The [ICC] International Criminal Court is exploring ways to prosecute Israeli commanders over alleged war crimes in Gaza. The allecrimes include the use ofdeadly white phosphorus in densely populated civilian areas, as revealed in an investigation by The Times last month. Israeinitially denied using the controversial weapon, which causes horrific burns, but was forced later, in the face of mounting evidence, to admit to having deployed it. WPalestinian groups petitioned the ICC this month, its prosecutor said that it was unable to take the case because it had no jurisdiction over Israel, a nonsignatory to th

court. Now, however, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the ICC prosecutor, has told The Times that he is examining the case for Palestinianjurisdiction over alleged crimes committed in Gaza.

-


5/15


The U.S. has used white phosphorus as weapon, killing innocent civilians.

Andrew Buncombe and Solomon Hughes [The Fog of War: White Phosphorus, Fallujah and Some Burning Questions The

Independent. November 15, 2005]

The RAI film said civilians were also victims of the use of W[hite] P[hosphorus] and reported claims by a campaigner from Fallujah, Mohamad Tareq, that many victim

large burns. The report claimed that the clothes on some victims appeared to be intact even though their bodies were badly burned. There are other, independent repof civilians from Fallujah suffering burn injuries. For instance, Dahr Jamail, an unembedded reporter who collected the testimonyofrefugees from the city spokedoctor who hadremained in the city to help people, encountered numerous reports ofcivilians suffering unusual burns. One residenttold him the US used "weird bombs that put up smoke like a mushroom cloud" and that he watched "pieces ofthese bombs explode ilarge fires that continuedto burn on the skin even after people dumped water on the burns."The doctor said he "treated people who hadtheir skin melted" JeffEnglehart, a former marine who spent two days [was] in Fallujah during the battle, said he heard theorder go out over military communication that WP was to be dropped. In the RAI film, Mr Englehart, now an outspoken critic of the war, says: "I hthe order to pay attention because they were going to use white phosphorus on Fallujah. In military jargon it's known as Willy Pete ... Phosphorus burns bodin fact it melts the flesh all the way down to the bone ... I saw the burned bodies of women and children." Another Firshand account from the battlefield was provided by an embedded reporter for the north country news a San Diego newspaper. Reporter Darrin Mortenson wrote ofwatching Cpl Nicholas Bogert fire rounds into Fallujah. He wrote: Bogert is amortar team[s] leader who directed his men to fire[d] round after rounofhigh explosives and white phosphorus charges into the city Friday and Saturday, never knowing what the targets werewhat damage the resulting explosions caused. There have also been claims that in the minutiae of the argument about the use of WP, a broadetruth is being missed. Kathy Kelly, a campaigner with the anti-war group Voices of the Wilderness, said: "If the US wants to promote security for this generation and tnext, it should build relationshipswith these countries. If the US uses these weapons in civilian neighborhoods, that melt people's boddown to the bone, it will leave these people seething and It will galvanize the insurgency putting America at risk.should think on this rather than arguing about whether we can squeak such weapons past the Geneva Conventions and international accords."Contrary to wwas said by the U.S. State Department, white phosphorus was not used in the open field to illuminate enemy troops. Fthis, tracer was used. WP a chemical agent, was used in a massive and indiscriminate way in districts ofFallujah. In the days that followed, U.S. satellite images showed Fallujah burned out and razed to the ground.

-


6/15


Cluster bombs fall under the jurisdiction of the ICC. Britain signing resulted in Tony Blair asking the military noto use cluster bombs.

Kenneth Roth [The Guardian (London). October 22, 2002. Law: Fight the good fight: Before joining the US in a war on IraqBlair must lay down the law on key human rights principles.]

The Blair government has also been busy making concessions on the new International Criminal Court (ICC), which ideologues in the Bush administration are tryingsedulously to subvert. Rather than trying to appease Washington, Blair should be pressing Bush to support key human rights principles.

If America and Britain were to go to war against Iraq, it would be the first British military action to be subject to ICC scrutinyHaving taken legal effect on July 1, this permanent tribunal for genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity can exercise jurisdiction if such crimes are committea national or on a territory of a government that has ratified the court's treaty. (The UN Security Council can also refer cases.) Neither the United States nor Iraq is amthe 81 governments that have ratified that treaty so far, but Britain and the entire European Union are. The ICC thus could prosecute British forces for war crimescommitted in Iraq, even though American forces would be exempt. The ICC would act only if British authorities were unwilling or unable to seek justice, but even thislimited oversight is significant. The Pentagon detests the ICC and wants to deny it any operational impact. But that is no longer an option for Britain. The criminal liabof its troops is now on the line. The British government has every right to insist that in any joint venture, the Pentagon be attentive to conduct that could result in warcrimes charges. Because no one expects British generals to lead a possible war in Iraq, the doctrine of command responsibility is unlikely to implicate British officers eif US forces are accused of war crimes. Butif the conduct at issue is a foreseeable part of US policy that Britain helps to implement, British troops could be accused of

aiding and abetting war crimes or participating in a joint criminal enterprise. The lack of ICC jurisdiction over American partners in that enterprise would not preclude court from pursuing Britons. In recent wars, US forces have made mistakes and even violated international humanitarian law but have not committed war crimes. Stil

is possible that,should war erupt in Iraq, American and British forces might fall foul of, for example, the provision of the Itreaty outlawing attacks on military targets that cause "clearly excessive" harm to civilians. That is especially so if tdo not learn lessons from recent wars and take corrective steps. The weapon most likely to produce such harm is the cluster bomA typical cluster bomb is a container that opens in mid-air and scatters up to 200 bomblets over an area the size of half a soccer field. Even in their new, "wind-correform, cluster bombs are not precision weapons. If used where civilians are present, the size of the area they attack and the difficulty of directing them reliably mean tcivilian casualties - sometimes substantial casualties - are foreseeable. A court conceivably could find that the use of cluster bombs in such circumstances is a war crimCompounding the problem is that many bomblets fall to the ground without immediately exploding. In Afghanistan, the number was as high as 20 percent, according

miners. These unexploded bomblets function as highly volatile anti-personnel landmines. They can kill and maim civilians long after thefighting has ended. That increases the chances that a court would find the civilian harmcaused by cluster bombs to be clearly excessive. Both Britain andUnited States have cluster bombs. To avoid potential ICC prosecution of Britons, Tony Blair should insist that neither British nAmerican troops [dont] use cluster bombs in Iraq, or at least nowhere near civilians. Undoubtedly, the Pentagon will kick and scream at this invoc

of the ICC. But the price of British participation in a possible war should be, at the very least, American attention to British concerns about avoiding criminal liability.

Cluster bombs violate articles 8 (2) (a), and 8 (2) (b) 1, 2, 3, 4 and 20.

-


7/15


Cluster bombs wreak havoc on innocents and kill indiscriminately.

Thomas Michael McDonnell [Associate Professor, Pace University School of Law. Cluster Bombs Over Kosovo: A Violatioof International Law? Pace Law Faculty Publications. 2002]

Cluster bombs endanger the civilian populationin two principal ways. A cluster bomb consists of a great number of small, but extraordinarily powerful bombs,contained within a large canister or dispenser. n30The cluster bomb is an "area weapon," so called because a single dispenser can spread its cluster bombs over a hugarea, from one to five football fields. n31 Each of the small bombs contains over a hundred tiny pieces of shrapnel, which cancause physical injury at especially long distances. n32 If dropped on a military target in a populated area, cluster bombs, becautheir enormous footprint and because of each small bomb's terrific destructive power,almost certainly will kill, maim, or otherwise wound a large numbeinnocent civilians. Secondly, five to thirty percent of the small cluster bombs are duds. n33 Butthey can remain dangerous yearafter launch; a slight vibration can detonate them. At least in some models, the passage of time makes the cluster bomb more dangerousthe fuzing mechanism deteriorates. n34Since the small cluster bombs often look like toys, children tend to pick them up, oftenresulting in death oramputation.

The U.S.s cluster bomb technology is particularly devastating and arbitrary

Thomas Michael McDonnell 2 [Associate Professor, Pace University School of Law. Cluster Bombs Over Kosovo: A Violatof International Law? Pace Law Faculty Publications. 2002]

For example,six of an F-15E fighter's load of twelve CBU-87Bs n61 can be set (1) to create "salvo" fire, making a footprint from nearly two to nearly seven and one hfootball fields n62 (concentrating the six CBUs on a single spot), or (2) to create "ripple" fire making a footprint from nearly four football fields to more than eleven foo

fields (essentially dropping the six cluster bombs end-to-end in a straight row). n63Bomb and mine clearance crews in Kosovo note that the footprint CBU-87Bcreate is typically a square kilometer (.62 sq. mile), ornearly nineteen football fields. Unlike earlier cluster bombs, the CBU-87B can bedropped from as high as 40,000 feet (12,195 m.). n66 In the Serbia/Kosovo conflict, the bombers generally flew at altitudes of 15,000 feet (4,57or above to avoid the Serb anti-aircraft batteries. n67 Although the bombs can also be delivered by missiles, rockets, or artillery, they were delivered only by air

in Yugoslavia. n68 Dropping ng the bombs from great altitude, however, increases the risk of missing the target. In DesStorm, for example, "bombing from medium or high altitudes had a significant impact on both cluster bomb accuracy and reliability.Not only was there a greater dispepattern for the submunitions than was intended with low altitude delivery, but pilots were outside the range needed to make sightingcorrection or assess damage." n69The evidence is unclear whether flying at 15,000 feet or higher during the Kosovo conflict endangered civilians. Sinhowever, "pilots' ability to properly identify...mobile targets was so important to avoid civilian casualties,...[the] civilian deaths raise the question[] whether...flying at altitudes may have contributed to these civilian deaths by precluding proper target identification." n7 Cluster bombs used in Serbia and the Kosovo Province arboth sophisticated and dumb. It is a sophisticated weapon in the sense that the designers have taken the simple concept of a hand-grenade and in a single bomb hav

created a weapon thousands of times more powerful.Except for nuclear weapons, biological weapons, and poison gas, the cluster bomb is perhaps moredangerous to civilians than any other weapon in modern warfare. n71It is also sophisticated given its several components: dispenthat can be set at various rates of spin and programmed to release at a designated altitude, submunitions with high tech arming mechanisms, secondary fuzes, andballutes. It is dumb in the sense thatthe submunitions or bomblets used in the former Yugoslavia could not be aimed at a target independently. n72 Given the huge arethat a single bomb can cover, these weapons pose enormous risks to noncombatants, men, women, and children, who happen to beunlucky enough to fall within the trajectory of the over 55,000 pieces of shrapnel of the two hundred or more bombletsthat a single cluster bomb releases: n73 "

-


8/15


Submitting to the ICC would eliminate the use of depleted uranium weapons.

Depleted uranium weapons are illegal under the Rome Statute. Article 8 (2) (a) bans any practice madeillegal by the Geneva Convention of 1949. DU weapons qualify.

Benno Aichele and Andrew Nye [Metal of Dishonor: Depleted Uranium, How the Pentagon Radiates Soldiers &Civilians with DU Weapons Chapter 11. Use of Illegal Weapons. http://www.iacenter.org/warcrime/11_weapn.htmInternational Action Center]

Subsequent agreements, including the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, the Geneva Conventions of1925 and 1949 and the Nuremberg Charter of 1945 haveaffirmed that the following acts are prohibited under international law:

i. use of weapons or tactics which cause unnecessary or aggravated devastation or suffering;

ii. use of weapons or tactics which cause indiscriminate harm, i.e., to noncombatants;

iii. use of weapons or tactics which violate the neutral jurisdiction of nonparticipating states;

iv. use of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gas, and all analogous substances including bacteriological methods of war;

v. use of weapons which or tactics which cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to theenvironment.

The use of cluster bombs are prohibited acts if war under i and ii above, while the use of Depleted Uranium weapons are prohibited acts of wunder all five categories

Depleted uranium weapons are also illegal under article 8 (2) (b) [4] (iv)Intentionally launching an attack in theknowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects orwidespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relatioto the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;

-
http://www.iacenter.org/warcrime/11_weapn.htmhttp://www.iacenter.org/warcrime/11_weapn.htm


9/15


Depleted uranium weapons have already killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians and American soldiealike.. DU weapons are indiscriminate; they contaminate the entire theater of war.

Abel Bult-Ito [Nothing depleted about 'depleted uranium' Global Research, January 22, 2006]

The Pentagon has been using radioactive weaponsfor at least a decade and a halfwith full complicity of at least three White House administrations and Republican and Democraticcongressional legislators. Conservatively, at least 300 tons and 1,700 tons of depleted uranium were used in the Gulf War and thcurrent Iraq War, respectively. This is about 70 grams ofdepleted uranium per Iraqi citizen, and if inhaled or ingested, it ienough to kill them all. Iraqi and visiting doctors, and a number of news reports, have reported that birth defects and cancers in Iraqi children havincreased five- to 10-fold since the 1991 Gulf War and continue to increase sharply, to over 30-fold in some areas in southern Iraq. Currently,more than 50 peof Iraqi cancer patients are children under the age of 5, up from 13 percent. Children are especially vulnerable because they tend to play in areas that are heavily poll

by depleted uranium. After the 1991 Gulf War, about 1 in 4, or 150,000, U.S. veterans came down with what is referred to as "GWar Syndrome." Most of the ailments characteristic of Gulf War Syndrome are consistent with radiation or heavy-metal poisoning. Veterans' childrare now also born with higher proportions of birth defects and other genetic disorders,according to sporadic accuonts. The Pentagon contindeny the harmful effects of depleted uranium or its role in Gulf War Syndrome. In this year's war on Iraq, the Pentagon used its radioactivearsenal mainly in the urban centers, rather than in desert battlefields as in 1991. Many hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people anU.S. soldiers, along with British, Polish, Japanese and Dutch soldiers sent to join the occupation, will suffer the consequences. Is this notradioactive genocide, especially when our troops used and continue to use most of the depleted uranium munitions in densely populated areas such asBaghdad and Fallujah? Depleted uranium has a half-life of billions of years. Consequently, Iraq will be a wasteland foreand essentially uninhabitable for anyone. As described by a report of the World Health Organization Depleted Uranium Mission to Kosovo, uranium can be found in rocsoil and contributes to natural background levels of radioactivity. Depleted uranium is a waste product of uranium enrichment for nuclear reactors and is about 60 percent as radioactive as naturaoccurring uranium. Depleted uranium is considered weakly radioactive. Nevertheless, depleted uranium is considered nuclear waste and has to be disposed of accordingly, which is expensive and

potential environmental hazard. The nuclear industry must be very pleased the U.S. military has found a way to get this stuff off their hands cheaply. Depleted uranium is reallmisnomer, because the potentially harmful effects are by no means depleted. Research reports have found that when depleted uranium is ingested or inhaled, it can ccancers and birth defects. It has considerable heavy-metal toxicity. As stated in the WHO report, because of its high density, depleted uranium is used in armor-pierciammunition and as reinforcement against conventional weapons. Upon impact, the depleted uranium fragments burn at intense heat, and 10 to 35 percent of it becomaerosolized. This aerosolized uranium "dust" is the most harmful component because it can easily be ingested or inhaled. Wind and people walking through it also easdisperse the depleted uranium dust. This dust is a predominant byproduct of military use of depleted uranium, incontrast to, for example, exposures in uranium mines or nucle

reactors. Our troops in Iraq will be severely affected by this radioactive war, not only because a lot more depleted uranium has been used and continues to be used, b

also because they have been there a lot longer than during the Gulf War. Hundreds of thousands of our troops will come down withWar Syndrome as a result of depleted uranium poisoning, and thousands will die from it. Thousands of their children will be born wgenetic diseases, cancersand birth defects. The continued use of depleted uranium harms our own troops and innocent civilians exposed twar machine, is un-American, and a crime against humanity. We need a worldwide ban on depleted uranium use.

-


10/15


B. Domestic solutions do not solve without external pressure.

1. The defense industry is too powerful on Capitol Hill, congress refuses to cut almost any weapons system

The Boston Globe, March 17, 2009

Gates is not the first secretary to try to change military priorities. His predecessor, Donald H. Rumsfeld, sought to retool the military butsucceeded in cancelling only one major project, an Army artillery system. Former vice president Dick Cheney's efforts as defenchief under the first President Bush, meanwhile, are cited as a case study in the resistance of the military, defense industry,and Capitol Hill. Cheney canceled the Marine Corps' troubled V-22 Osprey aircraft not once, but four times, only to see Congrreverse the decision. "There are so many people employed in the industry and they are spread across the country," William Cohen, former Republican senator from Maine who was Defense secretary in the Clinton administration, said in an interview. "Even though memof Congress may say, 'It's great that you are recommending the termination of X, Y, and Z,' they will also say 'that means 4,000 jobs in my state. Frankly, I can't go a

with that.'" Major weapons cuts could be an even tougher sell now, he added."When you start talking about [in] an economy th

is in a state of considerable turmoil it becomes even more difficult," Cohen said.

The power of defense contractors has made weapons regulation impossible.

Foreign Policy in Focus [New Military Mega-Companies: Corporate Interests or National Interests June 2002.]

In reality, as research by Harvey Sapolsky of MIT has demonstrated, the Pentagon has not shut down a single major weaponsproduction line since the end of the cold war. And even if Lockheed Martin cuts some overhead costs by closing factories and laying off workthere is no guarantee that the same company that brought us the $600 toilet seat in the 1980s and pioneered in the arts of bribery and influence peddling in the 1970going to pass on its savings on overhead to U.S. taxpayers. So, while it may never provide lower weapons prices for the Pentagon, the 1990s bout of government-bac

"merger mania" in the military industry has accomplished one thing: it has resulted in a slightly leaner, considerably meaner, and much morepolitically powerful corporate military sector. As John Pike of the Federation of American Scientists has noted, a company like Boeing, which its absorption of McDonnell Douglas has over 250,000 employees, leaves a huge "political footprint" that gives the company immense clout on Capitol Hill. Similarly, afthe Lockheed/Martin Marietta merger was consummated, Lockheed Martin put out a slick brochure that bragged openly about its "facilities in all 50 states."14Thegeopolitical reach of the new defense megafirms has been reinforced by millions of dollars in campaign cash. In 1997 the top six U.S. militarycompanies spent over $2.4 million in contributions to candidates and political parties, and Lockheed Martin was "leader of the Pamong weapons contractors (seeFigure 6). In fact, from 1991 to 1997, defense companies made more political donations than those other well-known merchants of

death, the tobacco lobby, by a margin of $32.3 million to $26.9 million. In addition to these hefty campaign donations, Americas six biggest defensecontractors spent an astonishing $51 million on lobbying over the past two years . These lobbying funds go for items likemaintaining armies of lobbyists and PR people in Washington, producing slick materials to present to Congress, and running ads touting company products in Capitol H

publications.15ast but not least, the consolidation of the weapons sectors gives arms companies greater leverage ovethe Pentagon, because the Department of Defense has so few options left when it comes to purchasing a major weapons system, as a result ourarsenal is bloated with expensive and useless systems.

-
http://www.fpif.org/papers/micr/notes.html#14.http://www.fpif.org/papers/micr/companies_body.html#Figure%206http://www.fpif.org/papers/micr/companies_body.html#Figure%206http://www.fpif.org/papers/micr/notes.html#15.http://www.fpif.org/papers/micr/notes.html#15.http://www.fpif.org/papers/micr/notes.html#15.http://www.fpif.org/papers/micr/notes.html#14.http://www.fpif.org/papers/micr/companies_body.html#Figure%206http://www.fpif.org/papers/micr/notes.html#15.


11/15


2. Groupthink prevents those in charge from realizing the real harm of the tactics we employ.

Dai Williams [ Weapons researcherUranium weapons & US war plans - Warnings to the UK Government 13th November 20http://www.stopnato.org.uk/du-watch/williams/du-dangers.htm]

In 1977 Yale psychologist Irving Janis identified a syndrome called Group Thinkin the US Governmentexplaining the Bay of Pigs fiasco. This concerns self-justifying illusions that develop within highly stressed groups -illusions of invulnerability and of morality thalead to extreme risk taking, that stifle internal dissent and demonise outsiders. The US Government displays all the symptoms of Group Thiin its approach to the war on terrorism and plans for Iraq. The US and UKmilitary and arms industry demonstratecollective group think [about] in justifying and keeping secret the development and international proliferation ofUranium weapons over the past 10 yearsand your colleagues may wish to be alert to dangers of group think too. Ask your commanders and troops. If my analysis is even partly correct then your military commanders are likely to be welaware of these Uranium weapons and becoming aware of their consequences for UK troops. The SAS and Marines recently assigned to heavily bombed locations in Afghanistan are at highest risk

unless they had full NBC protection all the time. However officers, troops and families may be trapped by official secrecy, public assurances by Mr Hoon anMoonie, and collective group thinkin the MoD "that DU is safe".

- 1


12/15


C. Joining the ICC would force us to forgo the use of illegal weapons.

1. The rules of the ICC constitute peremptory norms, which are binding and must be incorporated into

domestic law.

Nicole Deller [Arjun Makhijani, and John Burroughs. Rule of Power or Rule of law. 2002]

Some argue that the rules binding parties who have submitted to an international court constitute peremptorynorms. Because suchperemptory norms are nonderogable and enjoy the highest status within international law, appellants conclude that these norms arabsolutely binding upon our government as a matter of domestic law as well ...Our conclusion is strengthenedwhen we consider those few other norms that arguably do meet the stringent criteria for jus cogens. The recently revisedRestatement [ofForeign Relations Law of the US] acknowledges two categories of such norms: "the principles of the United Nations Charter prohibitinguse of force,"andfundamental human rights law that prohibits genocide, crimes against humanity,[and] war crimes,slavery, murder, torture, prolonged arbitrary detention, and racial discrimination.These laws are binding.

2. Empirically other nations have changed their military tactics in response to joining the court.

Gerard E O'Connor [1999 Hofstra Law Review Summer, 1999 27 Hofstra L. Rev. 927 NOTE: THE PURSUIT OF JUSTICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY: WTHE UNITED STATES SHOULD SUPPORT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT]

Evidence clearly indicates that the armed forces of many countries already take humanitarian laws [the ICC] itestablishes very seriously. The British [*974] army has revised its manuals to reflect these recentdevelopments in the area of international law. 293 All British soldiers, before being sent outside the United Kingdom, are thoroughly briefed and given cards tdetail the rules of war. 294Many modern armed forces are determined, through these manuals and training, to influentheir soldiers conduct in wartime and to deter these atrocities. 295 Although there can be no definite answer concerning deterrence the ICC is given the opportunity to work, it is clear that numerous massacres occurred this century without an ICC in place. Therefore, a permanent ICC would likely h

deterrent effect because the ICC [it] would have a fixed staff capable of professionally and quickly addressing worldwide situations as they occur. 296

3. The threat of prosecution will deter us from engaging in illegal activities.

Jamie Mayerfeld explains using the example of torture.[Playing by Our Own Rules: How U.S. Marginalization of International Human RLaw Led to Torture Harvard Human Rights Journal Vol. 20, 2007]

The torture outbreak shows why the United States should join the International Criminal Court. Imagine the situation if the United States had been a pato the Rome Statutefrom the date of its entry into force on July 1, 2002. Leading government officials, including the President, who haveauthorized or knowingly or negligently allowedthe systematic use oftorture and ill treatment would be vulnerable to indictment,prosecution, and punishment by the ICC.269 If the United States had ratified the Rome Statute, the [that] knowledgethat such behavior would makeleading government officials vulnerable to prosecution would be a powerful disincentive to engage in the behavior. This awarene

would reverberate throughout the public sphere, reminding citizens and elites that torture and ill treatment are [is a] crime underinternational lawand that they had renewed their commitment to such law when they ratified the Rome Statute.It would encourage them to carefully examine seriouallegations that leading government officials had committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. The [DOJ] Department of Justice, armed with empowerinlegislation presumably enacted for the purpose by Congress, would be poised to launch effective investigations into such allegations so to forestall the complementary jurisdiction of the ICC. This would further deter government leaders from authorizing or knowingly ornegligently allowing the systematic use of torture and ill treatment

- 1


13/15


White phosphorus is used mainly to obscure the enemies view and aid troop movements.

Juliet Lapidos What's So Great About White Phosphorus? Why an army might use a weapon that gets human rights groupsupset. Posted Friday, March 27, 2009, at 6:15 PM ET Slate.com

White phosphorus, known in martial circles as "Willy Pete,"may cause horrific burns when used as a weapon (clickherefor a gruesome visual andhere [PDfor a report on its health effects), but it'[I]s primarily deployed as a smoke screen. When packed into munitions, thechemical serves as a particularly efficient masking agent because it works so quicklybursting into thick, white, billowing cloudin just a fraction of a second.

Alternative weapons are available that produce the same tactical advantage as white phosphorus withoutcausing indiscriminate harm to civilians. Using the example of Israel in Gaza.

Human Rights Watch [Rain of Fire: Israels use of White Phosphorous March 26, 2009.

http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900SID/MYAI-7QF7GQ?OpenDocument]

In all of these cases, if smoke-screening was the intended aim, then the IDF possessed alternatives to the highly incendiary whitephosphorus; namely, 155mm smoke projectiles, which produce the equivalent visual screening propertieswithout the incendiary and destructive effects. Smokescreens generated by smoke artillery can be deployed moeasily over a wider area than white phosphorus with no risk of fires or burns to civilians. Israel Military Industries (IMmanufactures such shells. While smoke shells do not block infra-red optics and weapon-tracking systems, the IDF consistently used white phosphorus during the day,obviating the need to block night vision, and Human Rights Watch found no evidence that Hamas fired anti-tank guided missiles.Even if Israeli soldiers or armor in necover had been on the ground in the areas where white phosphorus was used, airbursting the munition creates a less effective smokescreen than ground-bursts becathe smoke is more widely dispersed. Ground-burst white phosphorus, targeted properly, is less likely to harm civilians because the burning wedges stay more containe

- 1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ayman2.jpghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ayman2.jpghttp://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp103-c2.pdfhttp://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp103-c2.pdfhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ayman2.jpghttp://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp103-c2.pdf


14/15


Nope. Even the countries that use them think they are terrible they only use them because they are cheap

Reinhilde Weidacher [et al. Cluster Weapons: Necessity or Convenience? Pax Christi.

www.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/report_ _weapons.pdf/download]

Continued high military utility of cluster weapons is put forward by many states as a reason againstinternational restrictions or prohibitions. At the same time a significant number of countries perceive themilitary utility ofspecific cluster weapons in armed conflicts they anticipate to be negligible or limited . It

has been pointed out by many that military operations likely to be encountered today actually demandreliable and precise weapons, not unreliable area-attack cluster weapons. Technical upgrades to cluster weapons, such asimproved fuzing and guidance systems, and the use of alternative precision-guided single-weapons provide a partial solution to the humanitarian problems caused by

use of cluster weapons.A large number of the 56 countries that according to a Human Rights Watch Survey of 2002 have stockpiles ocluster weapons, can be expected to perceive technological improvements and alternative weapons, often noproduced within their countries, to be unaffordable - even if measured against the military drawbacks of older typescluster weapons. Also the political need to procure and use weapons that minimize the occurrence of duds and collateral damage can be expected to be minmost of these countries.

- 1


15/15


There are safe alternatives to DU available.

David Hambling [Safe' alternative to depleted uranium revealed New Scientist. 30 July 2003]

Now Liquidmetal Technologies, an R&D company based in Tampa, Florida, says it can get comparable performance frompenetrators made of an exotic alloy of tungsten. Normally, solid metals are a lattice of tiny crystals. The size of the crystals affects theproperties of the material, which tends to fracture along the boundaries between them. Instead of such a metal, the company wants to use an amorphous althat has a random arrangement of atoms, as in a glass or liquid. Amorphous tungsten alloy has many of thproperties that make DU such an effective penetrator: it is self-sharpening and it should also be pyrophorisays Steve Collier, president of Liquidmetal's defence arm. The new contract is for a test batch of30-millimetre ammunition of the type uby American A-10 "tank buster" aircraft, which fired some 75 tonnes of DU during the recent Iraq conflict. While many will welcome an alternative to DU, questions reover the safety of tungsten. Fragments of tungsten embedded in flesh have been shown to cause tumours by Alexandra Miller and her colleagues at the Armed Force

Radiobiology Research Institute in Bethesda, Maryland. However, the toxicity of tungsten when inhaled is believed to be much lowethan that of uranium or lead. "Clearly, tungsten is not radioactive like DU, so there is no hazard fromradioactivity," says Peter Collins, director of the Royal Society's Science Policy Group. But most casualties will be caused in battle, he says: "The most obvioushealth hazard from any of these things is being hit by one."

- 1

war machine affirmative [av]

Documents