I agree any serious analysis of how genocide as defined by the UN Convention of Genocide, which Charles is using, should not involve demonization. How such phenomena come about is complex. Nevertheless the Convention is there.
I do not rule out Charles's argument that there may be more serious charges to answer by the other side in specific cases, such as this one, but I think it would have to be argued through.
And if crimes are the inverse of rights, between competing rights force decides.
There is a global battle going on about the nature of international law, which is a reflection of political and economic battles.
Chris Burford
London
At 14:07 27/05/99 -0400, Charles wrote:
>Jim,
>
>It probably is some genocide.
>
>Let me just say that I know there is a difference between some common
knowledge understandings of the meaning of the term "genocide" , and the
specific definition in the United Nations Convention On the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide definition of "genocide". The latter
does not have as a mental element (mens rea) of the crime that there be
intent to exterminate the whole group, rather the group "in whole or in
part". The UN Convention definition is the one I am using here. I must
repeat, my usage is more rigorous than yours with respect to international
law as codified in the UN Convention. In other words, it is you who has the
looser usage. The UN definition is also not tied to any definition of
fascism. In other words, you don't have to be a fascist to be a genocidalist.
>
>
>
>I don't have a problem with pointing out that there are orders of
magnitude of genocides. There are holocaustic genocides, maybe. But, the UN
Convention definition of genocide carries more focussed and rational world
opinion than the usage tied strictly to the Nazis' attempted annihilation
of the Jews, although the latter was the immediate cause of the UN
Convention. However, the statute is drawn more broadly than the specific
historical impetus. Surely, that does not surprise you. Why write a law
against something that so rarely occurs.
>
>Also, this whole discussion seems to procede as if the crime of genocide
is worse than the other crimes by international law that the US and NATO
are committing. This is not the legal position. Conducting an illegal war
is as wrong as committing genocide. Many criminals are charged with several
crimes because of one act. Sometimes all of the charges stick, and
sometimes only some , and sometimes none.
>
>Charles Brown
>