Power of Story Send a Tweet        
- Advertisement -

Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 1 (1 Shares)  

Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites (# of views)   No comments
Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds

No Difference for an Iraqi Mother - Whether Death Was Ordered by a Bush or Clinton.

By   Follow Me on Twitter     Message Jay Janson       (Page 1 of 2 pages)     Permalink

Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags  Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 1   Touching 1   Inspiring 1  
View Ratings | Rate It


Author 1723
Become a Fan
  (50 fans)
- Advertisement -

With all decent Americans focusing on President Bush's military orders as having caused the death of hundreds of thousands, one tends to forget President Clinton's orders also took thousands of innocent lives with missile attacks in three countries.

[ The following was originally published by Window, a Hong Kong magazine, July 16, 1993, as "Any Recourse for Iraqi Mother?" - The author, an American musician, berates the mass media for presenting officials' justification of military strikes that kill innocent children". ]

July 16, 1993,

The individuals accused of attempting to assassinate former US President [George Walker] Bush in Kuwait have been arrested and face trial.

- Advertisement -
Will anyone be indicted for firing a missile into the metropolitan home of a one-and-half year-old child?

US President Clinton announced that he ordered precautions to "minimize loss of innocent lives." Twenty-four missiles were fired into a large crowded city and only eight people were reported killed, so apparently the US military succeeded in following his directive.

However, the world keeps hearing about American respect for individual human rights. What about the individual human rights of this child?

- Advertisement -
Setting aside the human rights of the child's father and the other six civilians killed by the same missile, we can concentrate on an individual who must have been absolutely innocent of possible support for the government of Iraq which was the target of this retaliatory attack by the US.

We can assume that no one intentionally targeted this child, so no murder charge would be filed. But a charge of manslaughter seems appropriate and consistent with American jurisprudence.

Had President Clinton announced that he had ordered the military to take all precautions so that no innocent life would be lost, the problem of  whom to indict would be complicated indeed.

In that case, a charge of manslaughter could hypothetically have been brought against military personnel  for disobeying a presidential order by intentionally seeking the deaths of innocents whom the president had ordered spared. Perhaps even the corporation that manufactured the missiles could be indicted, for false claims of missile accuracy. Could a charge of negligence be brought against US military intelligence personnel who programmed the target?

But the president said quite clearly "minimize."  The one-and-a-half-year-old's life is the minimum part of the president's order.  It is not legitimate and logical to ask whether this child had any human rights which were violated by President Clinton's order stipulating minimum loss of innocent lives?

Had the US proposals been agreed upon at the Vienna International Conference on Human Rights, could the mother of  this Iraqi sue the US government in a UN court?

- Advertisement -
This same week, we heard of and read about the businessman in San Francisco venting his frustration about an alleged injustice by fatally shooting eight people more or less at random - individuals who happened to be around the offices of his supposed enemy.

Certainly no one could compare this intentional murder by a mentally disturbed person with a military order from the leader of the world's only superpower. But the question of what constitutes lawful respect for individual human rights of all people glaringly applies to any case of violent retaliation.

Former President Bush's human rights were threatened, and although he was unharmed, some non-American lives or rights to life were deemed expendable in what was described by Clinton as an appropriate retaliatory response. The child's death becomes appropriate.

Next Page  1  |  2


- Advertisement -

Must Read 1   Touching 1   Inspiring 1  
View Ratings | Rate It


Jay Janson is an archival research peoples historian activist, musician and writer; has lived and worked on all continents; articles on media published in China, Italy, UK, India and the US; now resides in NYC; First effort was a series of (more...)

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon Share Author on Social Media   Go To Commenting

The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

What Tony Bennett Said About 9/11 Martin Luther King Jr. Would Have Also

Girlfriends? Petraeus Oversaw the Slaughter of Thousands and He Will Face Trial:

Demonic David Rockefeller Fiends Dulles Kissinger Brzezinski - Investor Wars Korea thru Syria

So How Many Poor Vietnamese Did McCain's Bombs Kill in 23 Runs?

U.S. Threat to Atom Bomb North Korea Never Forgotten