Yes, the move "Three Kings" is not going to go down in the books as one of the best movies of the 1990s, let alone 1999. Furthermore, I feel misled by the film industry once again (see right: bottom of the movie poster reads "Only in Theaters" and we all know this was a lie). That being said, the movie does highlight some of the realities of war. Even in some of the most justified, well planned operations war crimes can still occur.There is the obvious use of torture. First, the character Amir Abdullah (Cliff Curtis) is suspected of being tortured because we, the audience, see him bound and gaged and in control of the Republican Guard. Second, Troy Barlow (Mark Wahlberg) is graphically tortured by the same members of the Republican Guard.
Even more important to the premise of the movie is the war crime of pillaging on the part of the four American soldiers. While there was never a group of Americans conspiring to steal Kuwaiti gold from Iraqis, there have been instances in American history, as well as many other countries, where soldiers have taken a "prize" for themselves.
A third war crime seen in the movie is the murder of a non-combatant. Abdullah's wife is murdered at gun point in front of Abdullah himself and Abdullah's daughter. Below are several of the conventions and laws implemented by the international community that regulate war crimes.
Beyond the below rules of war, there are other rules in the movie that fall outside international law. The movie takes place after a peace accord, so the use of hostilities and aggressive action on part of the four Americans probably voids the peace accord, and probably harms the US in some fashion. Also, we see the enforcement of US Policy: the renegade Americans were not allowed (by US Policy) to transport the Iraqi civilians across the border in order to reach a safe haven in Iran.
1. TORTURE
The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
Article 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
The
Article 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed “hors de combat” by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture
(b) taking of hostages
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for. An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict. The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention. The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.
Article 17
…No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind….
Article 87
…Collective punishment for individual acts, corporal punishment, imprisonment in premises without daylight and, in general, any form of torture or cruelty, are forbidden….
The
Article 32
The High Contracting Parties specifically agree that each of them is prohibited from taking any measure of such a character as to cause the physical suffering or extermination of protected persons in their hands. This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person, but also to any other measures of brutality whether applied by civilian or military agents.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966)
Article 7
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.
The United Nations Convention Against Torture (1984)
Article 1
1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term “torture” means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.
2. PILLAGING
The
Article 33
…Pillage is prohibited…
The Hague Convention IV (1907)
Article 28
The pillage of a town or place, even when taken by assault, is prohibited.
3. CIVILIAN (NON-COMBATANT) EXECUTION
The
Article 3 (see above)
1 comment:
One of the reasons the Iraqi soldiers started firing back was because of the American shots. During the village scene, the American commander kept saying don't fire. Once the first shot was fired, all sides new the ceasefire became null and void, hence the fighting. The irate Iraqi commander knew the Americans were being thieves in pursuit of personal gain, hence his attempts to provoke them into fighting, which he successfully did (which ended in his death). The soldiers on all sides new the terms of the ceasefire, however, once crimes against humanity were committed, the Americans could not do nothing - it was against the principles of the international system.
Post a Comment