I have been keeping up with the Human Rights Watch details through BBC for the past week and a half or so, and the details are pretty disturbing. What worries me is that there have been no answers as to who has been committing these atrocities. There were 200 plus bodies found in the Abu Salim Hospital were abandoned by the staff, due to fighting in the area, but there is still doubt if that really was the case, and if orders were given to leave the wounded. But there is no link yet as to who gave the orders. What I feel is the real news in the past week is that the 32nd Brigade, or "Khamis Brigade," headed by Col. Gaddafi's son was using a warehouse as a temporary prison, where they executed at least 47 prisoners. This evidence actually points at someone who can be convicted of war crimes. Up to this point in the Libyan conflict there has been no clear cut culprit to specific crimes, and now we have evidence of a specific name that goes with a specific crime. Human Rights Watch has witnesses that can testify what happened there as there are 20 some escapees. What is more disturbing, is that pro-Gaddafi forces are not the only ones who have allegedly committed crimes. Outside of Bab al-Aziziya, there were pro-Gaddafi forces found dead, most wearing the loyalist green, some with their hands tied, and bullet wounds to the head. I find it hard to believe that loyalists would kill other loyalists execution style. This points to war crimes committed by the rebels. The question now is if HRW puts members of the regime on trial, they cannot go without putting the rebels on trial. These investigations are no where near over, but I feel as though there will be many of these instances where there is no ultimate resolution or conviction of the people holding decision-making power.
Ben Bernard (9am Friday)
You have to be careful when look at these incidents and having War Crimes on the tip of your tongue. Although these types of executions are against both the Geneva Conventions, and will be considered crimes against humanity and therefore against international law. Like the discussion we had the other day in lecture; if the country/force/organization is not signed into these pacts and treaties, who has the authority to pursue any criminal charges?
ReplyDeleteJoshua 'jinx' Mooi
(11am Friday)
War is full of killing and bloodshed. This does not condone what the loyalist or the rebels did/do, but it does beg the question, does two wrongs make a right? There are those that will argue war (especially civil war) has no rules and one must do what one must in order to survive. Other will say humans are civilized creatures and must behave as such in order to protect their humanity. I personally believe in a middle road. Too many rules restricting warfare hindering coming to a swift conclusion and no rules in warfare cause a lot of collateral damage. However, in my opinion, torturing, and/or killing prisoners is not the same as killing innocent civilians and should not be considered war crimes. I don't necessarily agree with torturing and/or killing prisoners, but I feel there may be times when the soldiers (or rebels) feel the situation warrants it, especially if you know the opposing side would do it (and has done it) to your own people. So, I don't believe either side should be prosecuted for torturing and/or killing prisoners. I do believe, however, both sides should be prosecuted for unnecessary and intentional torturing and/or killing of civilians.
ReplyDeleteAlex Chesna (9am Friday)
This is something that might be thought of as a crime against humanity. I think that civilians are dying because of what the authority (Qaddafi and his supporters) think is right. I think that killing those prisoners was not a good choice because it will not resolve the situation, it will only cause more bloodshed.
ReplyDeleteLaeticia Ngamboma (9am Fridays)