Discussion of Human Rights Watch Accusations Against Russia

Is the conflict in Ukraine a non-international armed conflict or an international armed conflict?
“Mounting evidence from various sources in late August indicates the participation of Russian military forces in the conflict in eastern Ukraine. Hostilities between Russian and Ukrainian armed forces amount to an international armed conflict in which the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 would be applicable in their entirety as well as the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I).”

Human Rights Warch Is Out-To-Lunch:
* The obvious, yet ignored, interference by the USA created the heat that led from peaceful protests to violence to war. There are all sorts of proofs that the USA put in mercenaries (much in the manner they did in Syria and Libya before that). We know damned well that this is true as they used Blackwater mercenaries in Iraq a lot and some of these mercenaries actions are being dealt with in the American courts rather than the International courts where the truth ought to be brought out.

*It’s interesting that Human Rights Watch infers that the USA is not behaving in a wrongful manner yet it claims that Russia is. Sometimes I have grave troubles with Human Rights Watch when it blithers out of its way to ignore the provocative actions of the USA.

* Certainly the laws giverning war govern over the actions of all parties in all the eventualities and the conduct of all. However, Human Rights Watch seems to go out of its way to protect the US from and governance by International Law one bloody war after another.

“Even during armed conflict situations, in which the laws of war apply, or in times of occupation, international human rights law remains in effect. Ukraine and Russia are both party to a number of human rights treaties, including the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention againstTorture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. These treatiesoutline guarantees for fundamental rights, many of which correspond to the rights to whichcombatants and civilians are entitled under international humanitarian law (e.g. theprohibition on torture and inhuman and degrading treatment, the requirements for nondiscrimination, right to a fairtrial).”

Odd, how none of the above seem to apply equally to the USA and/or Israel yet are always considered in the damning of any country opposing either the USA or Israel. Not only are the Ukraine and Russia governed by these laws but so are all countries including YES, including the USA that is usually invoved to some extent in so many horrid wars round ourpoorworld.
“Certain fundamentalrights—such as the right to life and the right to be secure from torture and other ill-treatment,the prohibition on unacknowledged detention, the duty to ensure judicialreview of the lawfulness of detention, and rights to a fair trial—must always be respected,even during a public emergency.”

* Yes this is very clear and I’m certain that any clear mind, not prohibitively damaged by by the profusion of contemptable reports by the corporate press, would easily see that it is the USA and its NATO allies that are criminally ruthless in the Ukraine and complicently anti-Russia. I’d suggest taking much of the corporate press with a grain of salt at the very best of times. The crap about Russia is ruthless and perfumed with vile hatreds of the Cold War. We were past it except for the USA and now it’s dogging us again in a very dangerous manner.

* I’m going to refrain from getting all butt-ugly about the insecent extremes of illegal violence by the USA in all its wars and in all its CIA gambits. Nor am I going to get all butt-ugly about the massive International crimes flooding out from Israel with the stink of burned flesh and conspiracy to steal.

But think of this quote for a quiet moment of silence for those of Gaza and the West Bank please. “International humanitarian law provides protections to civilians and other noncombatants from the hazards of armed conflict. ”

“International humanitarian law provides protections to civilians and other noncombatants from the hazards of armed conflict. It addresses the conduct of hostilities—the means and methods of warfare—by all sides to a conflict. Foremost is the rule that parties to a conflict must distinguish at all times between combatants and civilians. Civilians may never be the deliberate target of attacks. As discussed below, parties to the conflict are required to take all feasible precautions to minimize harm to civilians and civilian objects and to refrain from attacks that fail to discriminate between combatants and civilians, or would cause disproportionate harm to the civilian population.”

*Somehow this quote eludes the accusation by Human Rights Watch of Russia being in the wrong here. Of course if one drowns oneself in the blather of the corporate press lies you may have an akwardley different view. Becareful the smoke of burning lies don’t corrupt your view.

*Looking at the above quote one easily sees that it essentially lays out the criminality of the coup-installed illegitamate government of the Ukraine and the darkness of American advice. Clearly the Ukraine has been bombing the hell out of the Eastern provinces with not even a tinker’s damn of protecting anyone in their way. To be concise the Ukraine. as advised by the USA, is acting in a criminal manner as laid out by the above quote from Human Rights Watch trying to accuse the separatists and Russia for the crimes of the Ukraine.

“The laws of war limit attacks to “military objectives.” Military objectives are personnel andobjects that are making an effective contribution to military action and whose destruction,capture, or neutralization offers a definite military advantage. This would include enemyfighters, weapons and ammunition, and objects being used for military purposes. Whilehumanitarian law recognizes that some civilian casualties are inevitable during armedconflict, it imposes a duty on parties to the conflict at all times to distinguish betweencombatants and civilians, and to target only combatants and other military objectives.Civilians lose their immunity from attack during the time they are “directly participating inthe hostilities.” ”

*I don’t want to repeat the above assault upon the Human Rights Watch agenda as the wrongfulness is virtually the same. Applicable to the USA’s many conflicts and also to the rabidly repeated assaults by the Israelis in the continued attempt of genocide in Gaza.

*In all things in war the ordinary folk must be protected and no vacuous reasoning can state otherwise.

“Direct attacks on civilians and civilian objects, as discussed above, are prohibited.The laws of war also prohibit indiscriminate attacks. Indiscriminate attacks are those thatstrike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction. Examples ofindiscriminate attacks are those that are not directed at a specific military objective or thatuse weapons that cannot be directed at a specific military objective.”

*Very clear to not be the ability of the separatists yet clearly the attitude of the illegal Ukraine government backed by the US in all ways and its butt-sniffing doggy followers from a variety of countries.

“Forces deployed in populated areas must avoid locating military objectives near denselypopulated areas and endeavor to remove civilians from the vicinity of military activities. Belligerents areprohibited from using civilians to shield military objectives or operations from attack.“Shielding” refers to purposefully using the presence of civilians to protect militaryforces or areas, making them immune from attack”

*Obviously to people other than Human Rights Watch this is the action of the Ukrainian military as advised by advisers from the USA. Yes they are undoubtedly on the ground offering ‘expertice’ such as; “Don’t worry about it. Just do as we say.”

“The war crime of “shielding” has been defined as intentionally using the presence of civilians to render certain points, areas, or military forces immune from military attack. While it may be unlawful, as noted above, to place forces, weapons and ammunition within or near densely populated areas, it is shielding only when there is a specific intent to use the civilians to deter an attack. Opposing forces may attack a military target that is making use of human shields, but it is still obligated to determine whether the attack is proportionate—that is, that the expected loss of civilian life and property is not greater than the anticipated military advantage of the attack.”

*Now this is a wicked bit that is said to have happened in Gaza by Hamas militants. ie: That human sheilds have been used. This is not a foreign claim in the conflicts in Palestine as invaded again and again by Israel but the only true human sheilds have been the Israelis using captured Palestinians as sheilds in the Israeli aggression in the West Bank.

*Proportionality is a bit of a rut. How much military gain can be assigned to one non-combatant accused of being a human sheild. I’d place the proportionality here at zero.

“Civil airports, roads, and bridges are civilian objects that become military objectives subject to attack if they are actually used for military purposes or military objectives are located on or within them. Even then, the rule of proportionality applies, requiring the parties to the conflict to weigh the short- and long-term harm on civilians against the military advantage served. They must consider all ways of minimizing the impact on civilians; and they should not undertake attacks if the expected civilian harm outweighs the definite military advantage.”

*Again a rule that could take years to work out the right or the wrong. It seems an obfuscation because the makers of the rules of war just can’t say that there is zero tolerance when non-combatant lives are at stake. If this rule were used as stated then perhaps the whole bloody war would face a stalemate and require a ‘political’ working out of the conflict.
We’re now well into the ratty section of law and order and the military crimes that are usually ignored for the country with the most weapons. So I’ll just leave it here for now.
Here is the full attempt by Human Rights Watch to attempt to blame Russia for the crimes of the USA advised Ukraine.



One thought on “Discussion of Human Rights Watch Accusations Against Russia

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s