AVHS

THEIS TOC J/F 09

The War Machine

FRAMEWORK [1/2]........................................................................................................................ 1
FRAMEWORK [2/2]........................................................................................................................ 2
WHITE PHOSPHORUS [1/2]............................................................................................................ 3
WHITE PHOSPHORUS [2/2]............................................................................................................ 4
CLUSTER BOMBS [1/2].................................................................................................................. 5
CLUSTER BOMBS [2/2].................................................................................................................. 6
DEPLETED URANIUM [1/2]............................................................................................................. 7
DEPLETED URANIUM [2/2]............................................................................................................. 8
MILITARY RESISTANCE [2/2]........................................................................................................... 9
MILITARY RESISTANCE [2/2]......................................................................................................... 10
SOLVENCY.................................................................................................................................. 11
FL: WHITE PHOSPHORUS............................................................................................................. 12
FL: CLUSTER BOMBS................................................................................................................... 13
FL: DEPLETED URANIUM.............................................................................................................. 14

-INDEX-
 AVHS
THEIS THE WAR MACHINE J/F 09

FRAMEWORK [1/2]
I affirm. The act of submission is an unlikely political move as states normally show a lack of
respect for international obligations: most treaty signatories establish sovereign reservations
over treaties. This is not an act of submission, as control is not forfeited to an international
institution. True submission means accepting treaty conditions as binding. Submitting to the
Rome Statute requires state parties to abide by the rules of the court as well as cooperate
with court functions. Part 9 of the Statute requires all States Parties to ensure that there are
procedures available under their national law for all of the forms of cooperation which are
specified under this Part, and the Statute also requires the harmonization of domestic law
with ICC jurisdiction. This entails the establishment of two forms of legislation:
complimentarity legislation and co-operation legislation. Some states have not fully
submitted to the court because they have not enacted both forms of legislation. Countries
such as Colombia have enacted complimentarity legislation but not cooperation legislation,
while others, like Japan, have enacted the latter but not the former. In this sense, only a
handful of states (22) have truly submitted to the jurisdiction of the court.

Legal Information Institute clarifies what it means to submit to jurisdiction [Subject matter jurisdiction
Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School. http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Subject_matter_jurisdiction]

A court must have jurisdiction to enter a valid, enforceable judgment on a claim. Jurisdiction may be broken down into two
categories: personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction is the constitutional requirement that a defendant
have certain minimum contacts with the forum in which the court sits so that the court may exercise power over the defendant.

Subject-matter jurisdiction is the requirement that the court have power to hear the specific
kind of claim that is brought to that court. While the parties may waive personal jurisdiction and submit to the authority of the court, the
parties may not waive subject-matter jurisdiction.

The value is justice because the resolution questions the appropriate jurisdiction of
institutions over acts of war and crimes against humanity. The criterion is restraining the
United States war machine. War is a necessary evil in the international arena. When
engaging in military conduct, however, nations ought to restrain their military from using too
much force, and should attempt to limit civilian casualties. Collateral damage is a reality of
war but states ought to take steps to minimize it when doing so requires slight adjustment of
military policy.

1.) The attacking of civilians is an act of pure cruelty. War is generally undesirable
because of the casualties imposed, but harming innocents who need not be injured
is a moral evil.

James A. Stroble [Excerpt from: The Ethics of War and the Uses of War. Ch 2. 1996]

Surely it is the helplessness of civilians that exempts them from attack, not the absence of such consent as might
be imputed to a conscript who is shooting at another draftee. It is thought to be crueler to sack a town than to kill armed men, but not because
civilians suffer more pain or are more innocent. It is not only a pity or sense of justice that moves us. The sheer absence of courage also makes a cruel
act naked, as it were. Without the courage to overcome the fear of genuine dangers such as those that
men face in battle, cruelty is unmitigated by any compensating virtue. There are no extenuations and no veils.
It is pure, unalloyed cruelty. The character of those who loot and ravage and who destroy women and children is one
of enraged cruelty and nothing else. A brave soldier is simply a less repulsive character than a cowardly one. An armed foe at
least has a chance to assert himself, to force his opponent to an effort of courage. He is, in short,

-1-
 AVHS
THEIS THE WAR MACHINE J/F 09

neither as helpless nor as pitiable as an unarmed civilian.(7) It is not that attacks on noncombatants are cruel in
contrast to those on combatants. War is an arena of cruelty, and the only discrimination between these is the "nakedness" of cruelty to
noncombatants. Thus this form of cruelty is one that we can clearly recognize as being wrong, and deserving of censure. But this is only a difference of
degree: war itself insofar as it is cruel, is deserving also of condemnation. The presence of compensating virtues may make the revulsion of war less,
but no amount of compensation can change the fact that war is cruel.

-2-
 AVHS
THEIS THE WAR MACHINE J/F 09

FRAMEWORK [2/2]

2.) The goal of war is to protect civilians through offensive military gain or self-defense.
An agreement to safeguard innocents is a reciprocal interest and the underpinning of
engaging in conflict
James A. Stroble 2 [Excerpt from: The Ethics of War and the Uses of War. Ch 2. 1996]

noncombatant immunity stems from more partisan interests: the concern

A more specific explanation for a general rule of
of any side in a war to spare its own noncombatants from the harm and suffering of being subject to attack. In
some cases, this may in fact be the principal aim of the military action itself. But in war one is not able to provide a
blanket of protection to one's own population, or at least one that is sufficiently impenetrable. (15) Noncombatants, because they are unarmed and
From
dependent upon others for their defense (or offense), are always vulnerable. And this is as true of enemy noncombatants as it is of one's own.
a native concern with one's own, then, and the inevitable vulnerability of one's unarmed population in
war, it becomes rational to agree with an enemy that both sides grant immunity to the unarmed
citizens of the other. This agreement, then, turns a personal concern into a general rule of noncombatant immunity. For Legal Positivists,
indeed, only the existence of explicit agreement could establish noncombatant immunity. However, the reciprocal nature of such restraint in war
provides only a conditional basis for the rule. As Douglas P. Lackey says,

This is especially true of a democratic society where politicians can be voted out of office for
excessively burdening the populace. Opening up the norm of noncombatant immunity will
increase the vulnerability of the U.S. to war weariness and military defeat.

3.) Not showing military restraint also decreases the chance of peace negotiations which
lengthens duration of conflict and increases dangerous militarism.

Roger B. Myerson [THE POWER OF RESTRAINT IN STRATEGIES OF CONFLICT AND PEACE Presented in Jerusalem
on May 14, 2008, as part of a panel on Challenges Facing Humanity. Tomorrow, in a conference organized by
President Shimon Peres of Israel]

a nation's security depends, not only on its resolve to maintain and use strong military forces,
The key is that
but also on its reputation for restraint. If others see us as lacking resolve, they may be tempted to attack or intimidate us. But if
we lose our reputation for restraint, they may fear to make peace with us. So an effective deterrent strategy must combine both a threat to retaliate
our restraint is equally
against aggression and a promise to reciprocate in cooperation. Our forceful resolve makes our threats credible, but
essential for the credibility of our promises. If [others] our neighbors believed only our resolve but not our
restraint, they would fear to appease us, and for protection against us they would seek stronger militant leaders. So a
military action that we intend as retaliation against aggression may instead provoke our
adversaries to greater militancy, unless we credibly communicate the limited scope and precise
preconditions of our action.

My sole contention is that United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of the international
criminal court in order to limit the recklessness of the U.S. war machine.

-3-
 AVHS
THEIS THE WAR MACHINE J/F 09

WHITE PHOSPHORUS [1/2]

A. The ICC would bar us from using illegal weapons that are dangerous to civilians.

1. Submitting to the jurisdiction of the ICC would limit the use of white phosphorus.

White phosphorous is a chemical weapon employed by the United States that is illegal.

George Monboit [Visiting Fellow of Environmental Science Oxford. A War Crime Within a War Crime Within A War
Crime. November 22, 2005. <Monbiot.com>]

The Pentagon argues that white phosphorus burns people, rather than poisoning them, and is therefore covered only by the protocol on incendiary
white phosphorus is both incendiary and toxic. The gas it produces attacks the
weapons, which the US has not signed. But
mucous membranes, the eyes and the lungs. As Peter Kaiser of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
told the BBC last week, If the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of
course is prohibited, because any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical
are considered chemical weapons.(4)
The US army knows that its use as a weapon is illegal. In the Battle Book published by US Command and General Staff College at
Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, my correspondent David Traynier found the following sentence. It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against
personnel targets.(5) Last night the blogger Gabriele Zamparini found a declassified document from the US Department
of Defense, dated April 1991 [reads], and titled Possible use of phosphorous chemical. During the brutal crackdown that followed the Kurdish
uprising, it alleges , Iraqi forces loyal to President Saddam ((Hussein)) may have possibly used white phosphorous (WP) chemical

weapons against Kurdish rebels and the populace in Erbil and Dohuk provinces, Iraq. The WP chemical was delivered by artillery
rounds and helicopter gunships. These reports of possible WP chemical weapon attacks spread quickly hundreds of thousands of Kurds fled from
these two areas(6). The Pentagon is in no doubt, in other words, that white phosphorus is a chemical
weapon

These types of weapons are prohibited by the Rome Statute in articles:

8 (2) (b) [17] (xvii) Employing poison or poisoned weapons;

And

8 (2) (b) [18] (xviii) Employing asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases

The ICC has shown interest in investigating the use of white phosphorus.
Catherine Philp [Prosecutor looks at ways to put Israeli officers on trial for Gaza 'war crimes' The Times.
February 2, 2009. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5636069.ece]

The [ICC] International Criminal Court is exploring ways to prosecute Israeli commanders over alleged war crimes in
Gaza. The alleged crimes include the use of deadly white phosphorus in densely populated civilian areas, as revealed in an
investigation by The Times last month. Israel initially denied using the controversial weapon, which causes horrific burns, but was forced later, in the
face of mounting evidence, to admit to having deployed it. When Palestinian groups petitioned the ICC this month, its prosecutor said that it was
however, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the ICC
unable to take the case because it had no jurisdiction over Israel, a nonsignatory to the court. Now,
prosecutor, has told The Times that he is examining the case for Palestinian jurisdiction over alleged crimes
committed in Gaza .

-4-
 AVHS
THEIS THE WAR MACHINE J/F 09

WHITE PHOSPHORUS [2/2]

The U.S. has used white phosphorus as weapon, killing innocent civilians.

Andrew Buncombe and Solomon Hughes [The Fog of War: White Phosphorus, Fallujah and Some Burning
Questions The Independent. November 15, 2005]

The RAI film said civilians were also victims of the use of W[hite] P[hosphorus] and reported claims by a campaigner from Fallujah, Mohamad Tareq,
that many victims had large burns. The report claimed that the clothes on some victims appeared to be intact even though their bodies were badly
burned. There are other, independent reports of civilians from Fallujah suffering burn injuries. For instance, Dahr Jamail,
an unembedded reporter
who collected the testimony of refugees from the city spoke to a doctor who had remained in the city to help people,
encountered
numerous reports of civilians suffering unusual burns. One resident told him the US used "weird bombs
that put up smoke like a mushroom cloud" and that he watched "pieces of these bombs explode into large fires that continued
to burn on the skin even after people dumped water on the burns." The doctor said he "treated people who had their skin
melted" Jeff Englehart, a former marine who spent two days [was] in Fallujah during the battle, said he heard the
order go out over military communication that WP was to be dropped. In the RAI film, Mr Englehart, now an outspoken critic of the
war, says: "I heard the order to pay attention because they were going to use white phosphorus on Fallujah. In military jargon it's known as Willy
Pete ... Phosphorus burns bodies, in fact it melts the flesh all the way down to the bone ... I saw the burned
bodies of women and children." Another First-hand account from the battlefield was provided by an embedded reporter for the
north country news a San Diego newspaper . Reporter Darrin Mortenson wrote of watching Cpl Nicholas Bogert fire rounds into Fallujah. He wrote:
Bogert is a mortar team[s] leader who directed his men to fire[d] round after round of high explosives and white
phosphorus charges into the city Friday and Saturday, never knowing what the targets were or what
damage the resulting explosions caused. There have also been claims that in the minutiae of the argument about the use of WP, a
broader truth is being missed. Kathy Kelly, a campaigner with the anti-war group Voices of the Wilderness, said : "If the US wants to promote security
for this generation and the next, it should build relationships with these countries. If the US uses these weapons in civilian
neighborhoods, that melt people's bodies down to the bone, it will leave these people seething and It will
galvanize the insurgency putting America at risk. We should think on this rather than arguing about whether we can
squeak such weapons past the Geneva Conventions and international accords." Contrary to what was said by the U.S. State
Department, white phosphorus was not used in the open field to illuminate enemy troops. For this, tracer
was used. WP a chemical agent, was used in a massive and indiscriminate way in districts of
Fallujah. In the days that followed, U.S. satellite images showed Fallujah burned out and razed to the ground.

-5-
 AVHS
THEIS THE WAR MACHINE J/F 09

CLUSTER BOMBS [1/2]

2. Cluster bombs fall under the jurisdiction of the ICC. Britain signing resulted in Tony Blair asking the
military not to use cluster bombs.

Kenneth Roth [The Guardian (London). October 22, 2002. Law: Fight the good fight: Before joining the US in a
war on Iraq, Blair must lay down the law on key human rights principles.]

The Blair government has also been busy making concessions on the new International Criminal Court (ICC), which ideologues in the Bush
administration are trying sedulously to subvert. Rather than trying to appease Washington, Blair should be pressing Bush to support key human rights
principles.
If America and Britain were to go to war against Iraq, it would be the first British military action to be subject to
ICC scrutiny. Having taken legal effect on July 1, this permanent tribunal for genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity can exercise
jurisdiction if such crimes are committed by a national or on a territory of a government that has ratified the court's treaty. (The UN Security Council
can also refer cases.) Neither the United States nor Iraq is among the 81 governments that have ratified that treaty so far, but Britain and the entire
European Union are. The ICC thus could prosecute British forces for war crimes committed in Iraq, even though American forces would be exempt. The
ICC would act only if British authorities were unwilling or unable to seek justice, but even this limited oversight is significant. The Pentagon detests the
ICC and wants to deny it any operational impact. But that is no longer an option for Britain. The criminal liability of its troops is now on the line. The
British government has every right to insist that in any joint venture, the Pentagon be attentive to conduct that could result in war-crimes charges.
Because no one expects British generals to lead a possible war in Iraq, the doctrine of command responsibility is unlikely to implicate British officers
even if US forces are accused of war crimes. But if the conduct at issue is a foreseeable part of US policy that Britain helps to implement, British troops
could be accused of aiding and abetting war crimes or participating in a joint criminal enterprise. The lack of ICC jurisdiction over American partners in
that enterprise would not preclude the court from pursuing Britons. In recent wars, US forces have made mistakes and even violated international
humanitarian law but have not committed war crimes. Still, it is possible that, should war erupt in Iraq, American and British
forces might fall foul of, for example, the provision of the ICC treaty outlawing attacks on military
targets that cause "clearly excessive" harm to civilians. That is especially so if they do not learn lessons from recent
wars and take corrective steps . The weapon most likely to produce such harm is the cluster bomb. A typical
cluster bomb is a container that opens in mid-air and scatters up to 200 bomblets over an area the size of half a soccer fi eld. Even in their new,
"wind-corrected" form, cluster bombs are not precision weapons. If used where civilians are present, the size of the area they attack and the difficulty
of directing them reliably mean that civilian casualties - sometimes substantial casualties - are foreseeable. A court conceivably could find that the use
of cluster bombs in such circumstances is a war crime. Compounding the problem is that many bomblets fall to the ground without immediately
exploding. In Afghanistan, the number was as high as 20 percent, according to de-miners. These unexploded bomblets function as highly volatile anti-
personnel landmines. They can kill and maim civilians long after the fighting has ended. That increases the
chances that a court would find the civilian harm caused by cluster bombs to be clearly excessive. Both Britain and the United States have cluster
To avoid potential ICC prosecution of Britons, Tony Blair should insist that neither British nor American
bombs.
troops [dont] use cluster bombs in Iraq, or at least nowhere near civilians. Undoubtedly, the Pentagon will kick and scream at this
invocation of the ICC. But the price of British participation in a possible war should be, at the very least, American attention to British concerns about avoiding criminal
liability.

Cluster bombs violate articles 8 (2) (a), and 8 (2) (b) 1, 2, 3, 4 and 20.

-6-
 AVHS
THEIS THE WAR MACHINE J/F 09

CLUSTER BOMBS [2/2]

Cluster bombs wreak havoc on innocents and kill indiscriminately.

Thomas Michael McDonnell [Associate Professor, Pace University School of Law. Cluster Bombs Over Kosovo: A
Violation of International Law? Pace Law Faculty Publications. 2002]

Cluster bombs endanger the civilian population in two principal ways. A cluster bomb consists of a great number of small, but extraordinarily powerful
[*42] bombs, contained within a large canister or dispenser. n30 The cluster bomb is an "area weapon," so called because a single dispenser can
spread its cluster bombs over a huge area, from one to five football fields.Each of the small bombs contains over a
n31

hundred tiny pieces of shrapnel, which can cause physical injury at especially long distances. n32 If dropped on a
military target in a populated area, cluster bombs, because of their enormous footprint and because of each small bomb's
terrific destructive power, almost certainly will kill, maim, or otherwise wound a large number of innocent civilians.
Secondly, five to thirty percent of the small cluster bombs are duds. But they can remain dangerous years after
n33

launch; a slight vibration can detonate them. At least in some models, the passage of time makes the cluster bomb more
dangerous, as the fuzing mechanism deteriorates. Since the small cluster bombs often look like toys, children tend to
n34

pick them up, often resulting in death or amputation.

The U.S.s cluster bomb technology is particularly devastating and arbitrary

Thomas Michael McDonnell 2 [Associate Professor, Pace University School of Law. Cluster Bombs Over Kosovo:
A Violation of International Law? Pace Law Faculty Publications. 2002]

For example, six of an F-15E fighter's load of twelve CBU-87Bs n61 can be set (1) to create "salvo" fire, making a footprint from nearly two to nearly
seven and one half football fields n62 (concentrating the six CBUs on a single spot), or (2) to create "ripple" fire making a footprint from nearly four
football fields to more than eleven football fields (essentially dropping the six cluster bombs end-to-end in a straight row). n63 Bomb and mine
clearance crews in Kosovo note that the footprint CBU-87Bs create is typically a square kilometer (.62 sq. mile), or nearly nineteen
football fields. Unlike earlier cluster bombs, the CBU-87B can be dropped from as high as 40,000 feet (12,195
m.). n66 In the Serbia/Kosovo conflict, the bombers generally flew at altitudes of 15,000 feet (4,573 m.) or above to avoid the Serb anti-aircraft
batteries. n67
Although the bombs can also be delivered by missiles, rockets, or [*49] artillery, they were delivered only by aircraft in Yugoslavia . n68

Dropping the bombs from great altitude, however, increases the risk of missing the target. In Desert
ng

Storm, for example, "bombing from medium or high altitudes had a significant impact on both cluster bomb accuracy and reliability. Not only was
there a greater dispersal pattern for the submunitions than was intended with low altitude delivery, but pilots were outside the range
needed to make sighting correction or assess damage." n69
The evidence is unclear whether flying at 15,000 feet or
higher during the Kosovo conflict endangered civilians. Since, however, "pilots' ability to properly identify...mobile targets was so important to avoid
civilian casualties,...[the] civilian deaths raise the question[] whether...flying at high altitudes may have contributed to these civilian deaths by
precluding proper target identification." n7 [*50] Cluster bombs used in Serbia and the Kosovo Province are both sophisticated and dumb. It is a
sophisticated weapon in the sense that the designers have taken the simple concept of a hand-grenade and in a single bomb have created a weapon
the cluster bomb is perhaps more
thousands of times more powerful. Except for nuclear weapons, biological weapons, and poison gas,
dangerous to civilians than any other weapon in modern warfare. n71 It is also sophisticated given its several
components: dispensers that can be set at various rates of spin and programmed to release at a designated altitude, submunitions with high tech
arming mechanisms, secondary fuzes, and ballutes. It is dumb in the sense that the submunitions or bomblets used in the former Yugoslavia could not
Given the huge area that a single bomb can cover, these weapons pose enormous risks
be aimed at a target independently. n72

to noncombatants, men, women, and children, who happen to be unlucky enough to fall within the trajectory of
the over 55,000 pieces of shrapnel of the two hundred or more bomblets that a single cluster bomb releases: n73
"

-7-
 AVHS
THEIS THE WAR MACHINE J/F 09

DEPLETED URANIUM [1/2]

3. Submitting to the ICC would eliminate the use of depleted uranium weapons.

Depleted uranium weapons are illegal under the Rome Statute. Article 8 (2) (a) bans any
practice made illegal by the Geneva Convention of 1949. DU weapons qualify.

Benno Aichele and Andrew Nye [Metal of Dishonor: Depleted Uranium, How the Pentagon Radiates
Soldiers & Civilians with DU Weapons Chapter 11. Use of Illegal Weapons.
http://www.iacenter.org/warcrime/11_weapn.htm. International Action Center]

the Geneva Conventions of 1925 and 1949 and the Nuremberg

Subsequent agreements, including the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907,

Charter of 1945 have affirmed that the following acts are prohibited under international law:

i. use of weapons or tactics which cause unnecessary or aggravated devastation or suffering;

ii. use of weapons or tactics which cause indiscriminate harm, i.e., to noncombatants;

iii. use of weapons or tactics which violate the neutral jurisdiction of nonparticipating states;

iv. use of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gas, and all analogous substances including bacteriological
methods of war;

v. use of weapons which or tactics which cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to
the environment.

ile the use of Depleted Uranium weapons are

The use of cluster bombs are prohibited acts if war under i and ii above, wh

prohibited acts of war under all five categories

Depleted uranium weapons are also illegal under article 8 (2) (b) [4] (iv) Intentionally launching an
attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or
damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment
which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage
anticipated;

-8-
 AVHS
THEIS THE WAR MACHINE J/F 09

DEPLETED URANIUM [2/2]

Depleted uranium weapons have already killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians and
American soldiers alike.. DU weapons are indiscriminate; they contaminate the entire
theater of war.

Abel Bult-Ito [Nothing depleted about 'depleted uranium' Global Research, January 22, 2006]
The Pentagon has been using radioactive weapons for at least a decade and a half with full complicity of at least three White House administrations and
300 tons and 1,700 tons of depleted uranium were
Republican and Democratic congressional legislators. Conservatively, at least

used in the Gulf War and the current Iraq War, respectively. This is about 70 grams of depleted
uranium per Iraqi citizen, and if inhaled or ingested, it is enough to kill them all. Iraqi and visiting doctors, and a number of news
reports, have reported that birth defects and cancers in Iraqi children have increased five- to 10-fold since the 1991 Gulf War and

continue to increase sharply, to over 30-fold in some areas in southern Iraq. Currently, more than 50 percent of Iraqi cancer patients are children
under the age of 5, up from 13 percent. Children are especially vulnerable because they tend to play in areas that are heavily polluted by depleted
uranium. After the 1991 Gulf War, about 1 in 4, or 150,000, U.S. veterans came down with what is referred to as
"Gulf War Syndrome." Most of the ailments characteristic of Gulf War Syndrome are consistent with radiation or heavy-metal poisoning.
Veterans' children are now also born with higher proportions of birth defects and other genetic disorders,
according to sporadic accuonts. The Pentagon continues to deny the harmful effects of depleted uranium or its role in Gulf War Syndrome . In this year's war

on Iraq, the Pentagon used its radioactive arsenal mainly in the urban centers, rather than in desert battlefields
as in 1991. Many hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people and U.S. soldiers , along with British, Polish, Japanese and Dutch
soldiers sent to join the occupation, will suffer the consequences. Is this not radioactive genocide, especially when our

troops used and continue to use most of the depleted uranium munitions in densely populated areas such as Baghdad and Fallujah? Depleted
uranium has a half-life of billions of years. Consequently, Iraq will be a wasteland forever and
essentially uninhabitable for anyone. As described by a report of the World Health Organization Depleted Uranium Mission to Kosovo, uranium can be
found in rocks and soil and contributes to natural background levels of radioactivity. Depleted uranium is a waste product of uranium enrichment for nuclear reactors and is
about 60 percent as radioactive as naturally occurring uranium. Depleted uranium is considered weakly radioactive. Nevertheless, depleted uranium is considered nuclear
waste and has to be disposed of accordingly, which is expensive and a potential environmental hazard. The nuclear industry must be very pleased the U.S. military has
found a way to get this stuff off their hands cheaply. Depleted uranium is really a misnomer, because the potentially harmful effects are by no means
depleted. Research reports have found that when depleted uranium is ingested or inhaled, it can cause cancers and birth defects. It has considerable
heavy-metal toxicity. As stated in the WHO report, because of its high density, depleted uranium is used in armor-piercing ammunition and as
reinforcement against conventional weapons. Upon impact, the depleted uranium fragments burn at intense heat, and 10 to 35 percent of it becomes
aerosolized. This aerosolized uranium "dust" is the most harmful component because it can easily be ingested or inhaled. Wind and people walking
through it also easily disperse the depleted uranium dust. This dust is a predominant byproduct of military use of depleted uranium, in contrast to, for
example, exposures in uranium mines or nuclear reactors . Our troops in Iraq will be severely affected by this radioactive war, not only because a lot more
depleted uranium has been used and continues to be used, but also because they have been there a lot longer than during the Gulf War .
Hundreds of thousands of our troops will come down with Gulf War Syndrome as a result of depleted uranium
poisoning, and thousands will die from it. Thousands of their children will be born with genetic diseases,
cancers and birth defects. The continued use of depleted uranium harms our own troops and innocent civilians exposed to
our war machine, is un-American, and a crime against humanity. We need a worldwide ban on depleted uranium use.

-9-
 AVHS
THEIS THE WAR MACHINE J/F 09

MILITARY RESISTANCE [2/2]

B. Domestic solutions do not solve without external pressure.

1. The defense industry is too powerful on Capitol Hill, congress refuses to cut almost any
weapons system.

The Boston Globe, March 17, 2009

Rumsfeld, sought to retool the

Gates is not the first secretary to try to change military priorities. His predecessor, Donald H.
military but succeeded in cancelling only one major project, an Army artillery system. Former vice president Dick
Cheney's efforts as defense chief under the first President Bush, meanwhile, are cited as a case study in the
resistance of the military, defense industry, and Capitol Hill. Cheney canceled the Marine Corps'
troubled V-22 Osprey aircraft not once, but four times, only to see Congress reverse the decision. "There are
so many people employed in the industry and they are spread across the country," William S. Cohen, former
Republican senator from Maine who was Defense secretary in the Clinton administration, said in an interview. "Even though
members of Congress may say, 'It's great that you are recommending the termination of X, Y, and Z,' they will also say 'that means 4,000 jobs in my
weapons cuts could be an even tougher sell now, he added. "When you
state. Frankly, I can't go along with that.' " Major
start talking about [in] an economy that is in a state of considerable turmoil it becomes even more difficult,"
Cohen said.

The power of defense contractors has made weapons regulation impossible.

Foreign Policy in Focus [New Military Mega-Companies: Corporate Interests or National Interests June 2002.]

In reality, as research by Harvey Sapolsky of MIT has demonstrated ,

the Pentagon has not shut down a single major
weapons production line since the end of the cold war . And even if Lockheed Martin cuts some overhead costs by
closing factories and laying off workers, there is no guarantee that the same company that brought us the $600 toilet seat in the 1980s and pioneered
in the arts of bribery and influence peddling in the 1970s is going to pass on its savings on overhead to U.S. taxpayers. So, while it may never provide
lower weapons prices for the Pentagon, the 1990s bout of government-backed "merger mania" in the military industry has accomplished
one thing: it has resulted in a slightly leaner, considerably meaner, and much more politically powerful corporate military
sector. As John Pike of the Federation of American Scientists has noted, a company like Boeing, which since its absorption of McDonnell Douglas
has over 250,000 employees, leaves a huge "political footprint" that gives the company immense clout on Capitol Hill. Similarly, after the
Lockheed/Martin Marietta merger was consummated, Lockheed Martin put out a slick brochure that bragged openly about its "facilities in all 50
states."14 The geopolitical reach of the new defense megafirms has been reinforced by millions of dollars in campaign cash. In 1997 the top
six U.S. military companies spent over $2.4 million in contributions to candidates and political parties,
and Lockheed Martin was "leader of the PACs" among weapons contractors (see Figure 6). In fact, from 1991 to 1997, defense companies made more
political donations than those other well-known merchants of death, the tobacco lobby, by a margin of $32.3 million to $26.9 million . In addition to
Americas six biggest defense contractors spent an astonishing $51 million on
these hefty campaign donations,
lobbying over the past two years . These lobbying funds go for items like maintaining armies of lobbyists and PR people in
Washington, producing slick materials to present to Congress, and running ads touting company products in Capitol Hill publications. 15 ast but not
least,
the consolidation of the weapons sectors gives arms companies greater leverage over the
Pentagon, because the Department of Defense has so few options left when it comes to purchasing a major weapons system, as a result
our arsenal is bloated with expensive and useless systems.

- 10 -
 AVHS
THEIS THE WAR MACHINE J/F 09

MILITARY RESISTANCE [2/2]

2. Groupthink prevents those in charge from realizing the real harm of the tactics we employ.

Dai Williams [ Weapons researcherUranium weapons & US war plans - Warnings to the UK Government 13th
November 2002 http://www.stopnato.org.uk/du-watch/williams/du-dangers.htm]
In 1977 Yale psychologist Irving Janis identified a syndrome called Group Think in the US Government explaining the Bay of Pigs fiasco. This
concerns self-justifying illusions that develop within highly stressed groups -illusions of
invulnerability and of morality that lead to extreme risk taking, that stifle internal dissent and demonise outsiders.
The US Government displays all the symptoms of Group Think in its approach to the war on terrorism and
plans for Iraq. The US and UK military and arms industry demonstrate collective group think [about] in
justifying and keeping secret the development and international proliferation of Uranium weapons over the past 10 years. You and your colleagues may wish to
be alert to dangers of group think too. Ask your commanders and troops. If my analysis is even partly correct then your military commanders are likely to be well aware of these
Uranium weapons and becoming aware of their consequences for UK troops. The SAS and Marines recently assigned to heavily bombed locations in Afghanistan are at highest
officers, troops and families may be trapped by
risk unless they had full NBC protection all the time. However official secrecy, public

assurances by Mr Hoon and Dr Moonie, and collective group think in the MoD "that DU is safe".

- 11 -
 AVHS
THEIS THE WAR MACHINE J/F 09

SOLVENCY
C. Joining the ICC would force us to forgo the use of illegal weapons.

1. The rules of the ICC constitute peremptory norms, which are binding and must be
incorporated into domestic law.

Nicole Deller [Arjun Makhijani, and John Burroughs. Rule of Power or Rule of law. 2002]

Some argue thatthe rules binding parties who have submitted to an international court constitute
peremptory norms. Because such peremptory norms are nonderogable and enjoy the highest status within international law, appellants
conclude that these norms are absolutely binding upon our government as a matter of domestic law as
well ...Our conclusion is strengthened when we consider those few other norms that arguably do
meet the stringent criteria for jus cogens. The recently revised Restatement [of Foreign Relations Law of the US]
acknowledges two categories of such norms: "the principles of the United Nations Charter prohibiting the use of force," and fundamental human
rights law that prohibits genocide, crimes against humanity,[and] war crimes, slavery, murder, torture,
prolonged arbitrary detention, and racial discrimination. These laws are binding.

2. Empirically other nations have changed their military tactics in response to joining the court.

Gerard E. O'Connor [1999 Hofstra Law Review Summer, 1999 27 Hofstra L. Rev. 927 NOTE: THE PURSUIT OF JUSTICE AND
ACCOUNTABILITY: WHY THE UNITED STATES SHOULD SUPPORT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT]

Evidence clearly indicates that the armed forces of many countries already take humanitarian laws [the
ICC] it establishes very seriously. The British [*974] army has revised its manuals to reflect these
recent developments in the area of international law. 293 All British soldiers, before being sent outside the United Kingdom, are
thoroughly briefed and given cards that detail the rules of war. 294 Many modern armed forces are determined, through
these manuals and training, to influence their soldiers conduct in wartime and to deter these
atrocities. 295 Although there can be no definite answer concerning deterrence until the ICC is given the opportunity to work, it is clear that
numerous massacres occurred this century without an ICC in place. Therefore, a permanent ICC would likely have a deterrent effect because the ICC
[it] would have a fixed staff capable of professionally and quickly addressing worldwide situations as they occur. 296

3. The threat of prosecution will deter us from engaging in illegal activities.

Jamie Mayerfeld explains using the example of torture. [Playing by Our Own Rules: How U.S. Marginalization of
International Human Rights Law Led to Torture Harvard Human Rights Journal Vol. 20, 2007]

if the United States had

The torture outbreak shows why the United States should join the International Criminal Court. Imagine the situation
been a party to the Rome Statute from the date of its entry into force on July 1, 2002. Leading government officials, including the
President, who have authorized or knowingly or negligently allowed the systematic use of torture and ill treatment would
be vulnerable to indictment, prosecution, and punishment by the ICC.269 If the United States had ratified the Rome Statute, the
[that] knowledge that such behavior would make leading government officials vulnerable to prosecution would be a powerful
disincentive to engage in the behavior. This awareness would reverberate throughout the public sphere, reminding
citizens and elites that torture and ill treatment are [is a] crime under international law and that they had renewed their
commitment to such law when they ratified the Rome Statute . It would encourage them to carefully examine serious allegations that leading
The [DOJ] Department of Justice, armed with empowering
government officials had committed war crimes and crimes against humanity.
legislation presumably enacted for the purpose by Congress ,
would be poised to launch effective investigations into such
allegations so as to forestall the complementary jurisdiction of the ICC. This would further deter government
leaders from authorizing or knowingly or negligently allowing the systematic use of torture and ill treatment

- 12 -
 AVHS
THEIS THE WAR MACHINE J/F 09

FL: WHITE PHOSPHORUS

A2: WP has a legitimate tactical use.

White phosphorus is used mainly to obscure the enemies view and aid troop movements.
Juliet Lapidos What's So Great About White Phosphorus? Why an army might use a weapon that gets human
rights groups upset. Posted Friday, March 27, 2009, at 6:15 PM ET Slate.com

White phosphorus, known in martial circles as "Willy Pete," may cause horrific burns when used as a weapon (click here for a gruesome
visual and here [PDF] for a report on its health effects), but it'[I]s
primarily deployed as a smoke screen. When packed
into munitions, the chemical serves as a particularly efficient masking agent because it works so quicklybursting
into thick, white, billowing clouds in just a fraction of a second.

Alternative weapons are available that produce the same tactical advantage as white
phosphorus without causing indiscriminate harm to civilians. Using the example of Israel in
Gaza.
Human Rights Watch [Rain of Fire: Israels use of White Phosphorous March 26, 2009.
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900SID/MYAI-7QF7GQ?OpenDocument]

the IDF possessed alternatives to the highly incendiary

In all of these cases, if smoke-screening was the intended aim, then
white phosphorus; namely, 155mm smoke projectiles, which produce the equivalent visual
screening properties without the incendiary and destructive effects. Smokescreens generated by
smoke artillery can be deployed more easily over a wider area than white phosphorus with no
risk of fires or burns to civilians. Israel Military Industries (IMI) manufactures such shells. While smoke shells do not block infra-red
optics and weapon-tracking systems, the IDF consistently used white phosphorus during the day, obviating the need to block night vision, and Human
Rights Watch found no evidence that Hamas fired anti-tank guided missiles. Even if Israeli soldiers or armor in need of cover had been on the ground
in the areas where white phosphorus was used, airbursting the munition creates a less effective smokescreen than ground-bursts because the smoke
is more widely dispersed. Ground-burst white phosphorus, targeted properly, is less likely to harm civilians because the burning wedges stay more
contained.

- 13 -
 AVHS
THEIS THE WAR MACHINE J/F 09

FL: CLUSTER BOMBS

A2: Cluster bombs are very effective.

Nope. Even the countries that use them think they are terrible they only use them because
they are cheap.

Reinhilde Weidacher [et al. Cluster Weapons: Necessity or Convenience? Pax Christi.
www.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/report_cluster_weapons.pdf/download]

Continued high military utility of cluster weapons is put forward by many states as a reason
against international restrictions or prohibitions. At the same time a significant number of
countries perceive the military utility of specific cluster weapons in armed conflicts they
anticipate to be negligible or limited. It has been pointed out by many that military operations
likely to be encountered today actually demand reliable and precise weapons, not unreliable
area-attack cluster weapons. Technical upgrades to cluster weapons, such as improved fuzing and guidance systems, and the use of
alternative precision-guided single-weapons provide a partial solution to the humanitarian problems caused by the use of cluster weapons . A large
number of the 56 countries that according to a Human Rights Watch Survey of 2002 have stockpiles of cluster
weapons, can be expected to perceive technological improvements and alternative weapons,
often not produced within their countries , to be unaffordable - even if measured against the military
drawbacks of older types of cluster weapons. Also the political need to procure and use weapons that minimize the
occurrence of duds and collateral damage can be expected to be minor in most of these countries.

- 14 -
 AVHS
THEIS THE WAR MACHINE J/F 09

FL: DEPLETED URANIUM

A2: DU weapons are effective

There are safe alternatives to DU available.

David Hambling [Safe' alternative to depleted uranium revealed New Scientist. 30 July 2003]

NowLiquidmetal Technologies, an R&D company based in Tampa, Florida, says it can get comparable performance
from penetrators made of an exotic alloy of tungsten. Normally, solid metals are a lattice of tiny crystals. The size of the
crystals affects the properties of the material, which tends to fracture along the boundaries between them. Instead of such a metal, the company
wants to usean amorphous alloy that has a random arrangement of atoms, as in a glass or liquid.
Amorphous tungsten alloy has many of the properties that make DU such an effective
penetrator: it is self-sharpening and it should also be pyrophoric, says Steve Collier, president of Liquidmetal's
defence arm. The new contract is for a test batch of 30-millimetre ammunition of the type used by American A-10 "tank
buster" aircraft, which fired some 75 tonnes of DU during the recent Iraq conflict. While many will welcome an alternative to DU, questions remain over
the safety of tungsten. Fragments of tungsten embedded in flesh have been shown to cause tumours by Alexandra Miller and her colleagues at the
toxicity of tungsten when inhaled is
Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute in Bethesda, Maryland. However, the
believed to be much lower than that of uranium or lead. "Clearly, tungsten is not radioactive
like DU, so there is no hazard from radioactivity," says Peter Collins, director of the Royal Society's Science Policy Group.
But most casualties will be caused in battle, he says: "The most obvious health hazard from any of these things is being hit by one."

- 15 -