The <a href="http://www.unesco.org/culture/laws/hague/html_eng/page2.shtml">regular convention</a>
Quote:
Article 5. Occupation
1. Any High Contracting Party in occupation of the whole or part of the territory of another High Contracting Party shall as far as possible support the competent national authorities of the occupied country in safeguarding and preserving its cultural property.
2. Should it prove necessary to take measures to preserve cultural property situated in occupied territory and damaged by military operations, and should the competent national authorities be unable to take such measures, the Occupying Power shall, as far as possible, and in close co-operation with such authorities, take the most necessary measures of preservation.
3. Any High Contracting Party whose government is considered their legitimate government by members of a resistance movement, shall, if possible, draw their attention to the obligation to comply with those provisions of the Convention dealing with respect for cultural property.
|
The questions are: Was the museum in "occupied territory", and was it reasonably possible to protect it?
Both questions are debatable.
Okay, the <a href="http://www.unesco.org/culture/laws/hague/html_eng/protocol2.shtml">second protocol of the Hague convention</a> (the updated version) says:
Quote:
Article 15 Serious violations of this Protocol
1. Any person commits an offence within the meaning of this Protocol if that person intentionally and in violation of the Convention or this Protocol commits any of the following acts:
- making cultural property under enhanced protection the object of attack;
- using cultural property under enhanced protection or its immediate surroundings in support of military action;
- extensive destruction or appropriation of cultural property protected under the Convention and this Protocol;
- making cultural property protected under the Convention and this Protocol the object of attack;
- Theft, pillage or misappropriation of, or acts of vandalism directed against cultural property protected under the Convention.
|
The Iraqi guys are guilty of the second thing, by hiding in that Mosque in Najaf, amongst other things.
The US is not guilty of any of these, because *they* did not attack any protected side if they could avoid it, and *they* did not pillage the museum!
In my opinion, the case against Bush is very, very weak.