Post feature RSS US crimes against humanity

A list attributed to Robert Elias, a US Professor of Political Science.

Posted by on

This is a version of an an original page atributed to Robert Elias, a US Professor of Political Science, a list which, like so many others, has otherwise 'disappered'.

feillyne: the credibility of this list, and the evidence for it, weren't checked, doublechecked or triplechecked. You should find some evidence for some of these, though. The rest could be undermined or proven wrong.


US Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction

The indiscriminate use of bombs by the US, usually outside a declared war
situation, for wanton destruction, for no military objectives, whose
targets and victims are civilian populations, or what we now call
"collateral damage."

Japan (1945)
China (1945-46)
Korea & China (1950-53)
Guatemala (1954, 1960, 1967-69)
Indonesia (1958)
Cuba (1959-61)
Congo (1964)
Peru (1965)
Laos (1964-70)
Vietnam (1961-1973)
Cambodia (1969-70)
Grenada (1983)
Lebanon (1983-84)
Libya (1986)
El Salvador (1980s)
Nicaragua (1980s)
Iran (1987)
Panama (1989)
Iraq (1991-2000)
Kuwait (1991)
Somalia (1993)
Bosnia (1994-95)
Sudan (1998)
Afghanistan (1998)
Pakistan (1998)
Yugoslavia (1999)
Bulgaria (1999)
Macedonia (1999)

US Use of Chemical & Biological Weapons
The US has refused to sign Conventions against the development and use of
chemical and biological weapons, and has either used or tested (without
informing the civilian populations) these weapons in the following
locations abroad:

Bahamas (late 1940s-mid-1950s)
Canada (1953)
China and Korea (1950-53)
Korea (1967-69)
Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia (1961-1970)
Panama (1940s-1990s)
Cuba (1962, 69, 70, 71, 81, 96)

And the US has tested such weapons on US civilian populations, without
their knowledge, in the following locations:

Watertown, NY and US Virgin Islands (1950)
SF Bay Area (1950, 1957-67)
Minneapolis (1953)
St. Louis (1953)
Washington, DC Area (1953, 1967)
Florida (1955)
Savannah GA/Avon Park, FL (1956-58)
New York City (1956, 1966)
Chicago (1960)

And the US has encouraged the use of such weapons, and provided the
technology to develop such weapons in various nations abroad, including:

South Africa

US Political and Military Interventions since 1945
The US has launched a series of military and political interventions since
1945, often to install puppet regimes, or alternatively to engage in
political actions such as smear campaigns, sponsoring or targeting
opposition political groups (depending on how they served US interests),
undermining political parties, sabotage and terror campaigns, and so forth.
It has done so in nations such as

China (1945-51)
South Africa (1960s-1980s)

France (1947)
Bolivia (1964-75)

Marshall Islands (1946-58)
Australia (1972-75)

Italy (1947-1975)
Iraq (1972-75)

Greece (1947-49)
Portugal (1974-76)

Philippines (1945-53)
East Timor (1975-99)

Korea (1945-53)
Ecuador (1975)

Albania (1949-53)
Argentina (1976)

Eastern Europe (1948-56)
Pakistan (1977)

Germany (1950s)
Angola (1975-1980s)

Iran (1953)
Jamaica (1976)

Guatemala (1953-1990s)
Honduras (1980s)

Costa Rica (mid-1950s, 1970-71)
Nicaragua (1980s)

Middle East (1956-58)
Philippines (1970s-90s)

Indonesia (1957-58)
Seychelles (1979-81)

Haiti (1959)
South Yemen (1979-84)

Western Europe (1950s-1960s)
South Korea (1980)

Guyana (1953-64)
Chad (1981-82)

Iraq (1958-63)
Grenada (1979-83)

Vietnam (1945-53)
Suriname (1982-84)

Cambodia (1955-73)
Libya (1981-89)

Laos (1957-73)
Fiji (1987)

Thailand (1965-73)
Panama (1989)

Ecuador (1960-63)
Afghanistan (1979-92)

Congo (1960-65, 1977-78)
El Salvador (1980-92)

Algeria (1960s)
Haiti (1987-94)

Brazil (1961-64)
Bulgaria (1990-91)

Peru (1965)
Albania (1991-92)

Dominican Republic (1963-65)
Somalia (1993)

Cuba (1959-present)
Iraq (1990s)

Indonesia (1965)
Peru (1990-present)

Ghana (1966)
Mexico (1990-present)

Uruguay (1969-72)
Colombia (1990-present)

Chile (1964-73)
Yugoslavia (1995-99)

Greece (1967-74)

US Perversions of Foreign Elections
The US has specifically intervened to rig or distort the outcome of foreign
elections, and sometimes engineered sham "demonstration" elections to ward
off accusations of government repression in allied nations in the US sphere
of influence. These sham elections have often installed or maintained in
power repressive dictators who have victimized their populations. Such
practices have occurred in nations such as:

Philippines (1950s)
Italy (1948-1970s)
Lebanon (1950s)
Indonesia (1955)
Vietnam (1955)
Guyana (1953-64)
Japan (1958-1970s)
Nepal (1959)
Laos (1960)
Brazil (1962)
Dominican Republic (1962)
Guatemala (1963)
Bolivia (1966)
Chile (1964-70)
Portugal (1974-75)
Australia (1974-75)
Jamaica (1976)
El Salvador (1984)
Panama (1984, 89)
Nicaragua (1984, 90)
Haiti (1987, 88)
Bulgaria (1990-91)
Albania (1991-92)
Russia (1996)
Mongolia (1996)
Bosnia (1998)

US Versus World at the United Nations
The US has repeatedly acted to undermine peace and human rights initiatives
at the United Nations, routinely voting against hundreds of UN resolutions
and treaties. The US easily has the worst record of any nation on not
supporting UN treaties. In almost all of its hundreds of "no" votes, the US
was the "sole" nation to vote no (among the 100-130 nations that usually
vote), and among only 1 or 2 other nations voting no the rest of the time.
Here's a representative sample of US votes from 1978-1987:

US Is the Sole "No" Vote on Resolutions or Treaties
For aid to underdeveloped nations
For the promotion of developing nation exports
For UN promotion of human rights
For protecting developing nations in trade agreements
For New International Economic Order for underdeveloped nations
For development as a human right
Versus multinational corporate operations in South Africa
For cooperative models in developing nations
For right of nations to economic system of their choice
Versus chemical and biological weapons (at least 3 times)
Versus Namibian apartheid
For economic/standard of living rights as human rights
Versus apartheid South African aggression vs. neighboring states (2 times)
Versus foreign investments in apartheid South Africa
For world charter to protect ecology
For anti-apartheid convention
For anti-apartheid convention in international sports
For nuclear test ban treaty (at least 2 times)
For prevention of arms race in outer space
For UNESCO-sponsored new world information order (at least 2 times)
For international law to protect economic rights
For Transport & Communications Decade in Africa
Versus manufacture of new types of weapons of mass destruction
Versus naval arms race
For Independent Commission on Disarmament & Security Issues
For UN response mechanism for natural disasters
For the Right to Food
For Report of Committee on Elimination of Racial Discrimination
For UN study on military development
For Commemoration of 25th anniversary of Independence for Colonial Countries
For Industrial Development Decade in Africa
For interdependence of economic and political rights
For improved UN response to human rights abuses
For protection of rights of migrant workers
For protection against products harmful to health and the environment
For a Convention on the Rights of the Child
For training journalists in the developing world
For international cooperation on third world debt
For a UN Conference on Trade & Development

US Is 1 of Only 2 "No" Votes on Resolutions or Treaties
For Palestinian living conditions/rights (at least 8 times)
Versus foreign intervention into other nations
For a UN Conference on Women
Versus nuclear test explosions (at least 2 times)
For the non-use of nuclear weapons vs. non-nuclear states
For a Middle East nuclear free zone
Versus Israeli nuclear weapons (at least 2 times)
For a new world international economic order
For a trade union conference on sanctions vs. South Africa
For the Law of the Sea Treaty
For economic assistance to Palestinians
For UN measures against fascist activities and groups
For international cooperation on money/finance/debt/trade/development
For a Zone of Peace in the South Atlantic
For compliance with Intl Court of Justice decision for Nicaragua vs. US.
**For a conference and measures to prevent international terrorism
(including its underlying causes)
For ending the trade embargo vs. Nicaragua

US Is 1 of Only 3 "No" Votes on Resolutions and Treaties
Versus Israeli human rights abuses (at least 6 times)
Versus South African apartheid (at least 4 times)
Versus return of refugees to Israel
For ending nuclear arms race (at least 2 times)
For an embargo on apartheid South Africa
For South African liberation from apartheid (at least 3 times)
For the independence of colonial nations
For the UN Decade for Women
Versus harmful foreign economic practices in colonial territories
For a Middle East Peace Conference
For ending the embargo of Cuba (at least 10 times)

In addition, the US has:
Repeatedly withheld its dues from the UN
Twice left UNESCO because of its human rights initiatives
Twice left the International Labor Organization for its workers rights
Refused to renew the Antiballistic Missile Treaty
Refused to sign the Kyoto Treaty on global warming
Refused to back the World Health Organization's ban on infant formula abuses
Refused to sign the Anti-Biological Weapons Convention
Refused to sign the Convention against the use of land mines
Refused to participate in the UN Conference Against Racism in Durban
Been one of the last nations in the world to sign the UN Covenant on
Political &
Civil Rights (30 years after its creation)
Refused to sign the UN Covenant on Economic & Social Rights
Opposed the emerging new UN Covenant on the Rights to Peace, Development &
Environmental Protection

Sampling of Deaths >From US Military Interventions & Propping Up Corrupt
Dictators (using the most conservative estimates)
30,000 dead

100,000 dead

4 million dead

200,000 dead

20,000 dead

El Salvador
63,000 dead

40,000 dead

10,000 dead

10,000 dead

10,000 dead

10,000 dead

1.3 million dead

30,000 dead

8-10,000 dead

50,000 dead

5,000 dead

140,000 dead

10,000 dead

5000 dead

150,000 dead

100,000 dead

Dominican Republic
10,000 dead

500 dead

1000 dead

South Africa
10,000 dead

10,000 dead

40,000 dead

1 million dead

East Timor
1/3-1/2 of total population

10,000 dead

600,000 dead

1 million dead

300,000 dead

500 dead

2 million dead

10,000 dead

1.5 million dead

50,000 dead

Other Lethal US Interventions
CIA Terror Training Manuals
Development and distribution of training manuals for foreign military
personnel or foreign nationals, including instructions on assassination,
subversion, sabotage, population control, torture, repression,
psychological torture, death squads, etc.

Specific Torture Campaigns
Creation and launching of direct US campaigns to support torture as an
instrument of terror and social control for governments in Greece, Iran,
Vietnam, Bolivia, Uruguay, Brazil, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, and Panama

Supporting and Harboring Terrorists
The promotion, protection, arming or equiping of terrorists such as:

. Klaus Barbie and other German Nazis, and Italian and Japanese fascists,
after WW II

. Manual Noriega (Panama), Saddam Hussein (Iraq), Rafael Trujillo
(Dominican Republic), Osama bin Laden (Afghanistan), and others whose
terrorism has come back to haunt us

. Running the Higher War College (Brazil) and first School of the Americas
(Panama), which gave US training to repressors, death squad members, and
torturers (the second School of the Americas is still running at Ft.
Benning GA)

. Providing asylum for Cuban, Salvadoran, Guatemalan, Haitian, Chilean,
Argentinian, Iranian, South Vietnamese and other terrorists, dictators, and

Assassinating World Leaders
Using assassination as a tool of foreign policy, wherein the CIA has
initiated assassination attempts against at least 40 foreign heads of state
(some several times) in the last 50 years, a number of which have been
successful, such as: Patrice Lumumba (Congo), Rafael Trujillo (Dominican
Republic), Ngo Dihn Diem (Vietnam) Salvador Allende (Chile)

Arms Trade & US Military Presence
. The US is the world's largest seller of weapons abroad, arming
dictators, militaries, and terrorists that repress or victimize their
populations, and fueling scores of violent conflicts around the globe

. The US is the world's largest provider of live land mines which, even in
peacetime, kill or injure at least several people around the world each day

. The US has military bases in at least 50 nations around the world, which
have led to frequent victimization of local populations.

. The US military has been bombing one Middle Eastern or Muslim nation or
another almost continuously since 1983, including Lebanon, Libya, Syria,
Iran, the Sudan, Afghanistan, and Iraq (almost daily bombings since 1991)

This, then, is a sampling of American foreign policies over the last 50
years. The FBI uses the following definition for Terrorism: "The unlawful
use of force or violence committed by a group or individual, who has some
connection to a foreign power or whose activities transcend national
boundaries, against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a
government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in furtherance
of political or social objectives." This sounds like the terrorism we just
experienced. It also sounds a lot like the US policies and actions since
1945 that I've just described.

feillyne Author

The USA caused all these deaths directly or indirectly. = [ 800k deaths in Iraq, 1,5 million injured.

Reply Good karma+1 vote

*Japan: The two nukes are between the Biggest bullshits ever made! That was just to show their power to USSR.
*Vietnam: The use of Napalm Bombs IS a war crime! And the civilian massacres (like what happened in My Lai) showed how retarded was the USA soldiers. Anyway, they HAD LOST that war! (just the North Americans donĀ“t know it).
*Latin America: They helped to implant military dictatorships (that had killed many people). I believe that they even helped on the tortures.
*Pakistan: Yeah! They supported Osama bin Laden and other terrorists, that was fighting against the Soviets.
*Iraq: During the Iran-Iraq War, US supported Iraq, under Saddam Husein control, and [US] even used bio weapons. In 2003 they assaulted Iraq and killed Saddam saying that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (remember that US have and even use this kind of weapon). And everybody know that US just attacked Iraq because of the petroleum.

And, after read it, you will watch a movie/play a game where an American saves the world, or even eat a Big Mac. USA is not the good dudes. Just remember it.
Sorry for wrong informations and "Engrish" probs.

Reply Good karma Bad karma0 votes
feillyne Author

And they could nuke Japan or its vicinities without harming anybody, just to warn it/them about the power the USA possesses.

Not just bomb civilians like spineless cowards.

All involved in it should be prosecuted for a war crime.

Reply Good karma+1 vote

Would like to stress that the USA used no weapons of mass of destruction aggressively, except in Japan, but that was necessary. They tested it, but not over in those countries. They tested them on home soil, usually Hawaii, Alaska, territories owned by the USA in the Pacific and also in the Carri bean. That's why I hate Conspiracy Theories - they are lying in the process of trying to uncover lies. The Indonesian one for example is incorrect - they were British doing that. The British and USSR did far more foreign WMD testing.

Also, the world's largest arms trader is not the USA. It is Russia and the former Soviet Bloc.

The USA is not the sole user of crimes against humanity. The Eastern Bloc as well as countries in East Asia and the Middle East all have a long history of it as well. Don't just single the USA out.

The USA does not withhold it's dues to the UN - more rather it runs the damn thing entirely.

Reply Good karma Bad karma+3 votes
feillyne Author

Yup, only THERE. They could test it out in Japan, but not on a civilian city - just somewhere in the field to show them why they should surrender.

Instead, they decided to bomb CIVILIANS and be 'heroes'.

Hmmm, the list wasn't checked, thanks for the remark.

Reply Good karma+1 vote

They weren't just civilians. Testing it out in a field wouldn't work either because:

-Less people see it.
-It does not demonstrate power - it burns a big amount of ground so what? Anyone can do that.
-The only way to break a country's will is to destroy it's population. Sad but true.
-The Nuclear Bombings of Hiroshima or Nagasaki was the best way to do it. Alternatively they could've invaded Japan directly. However, it would take time to muster the force required for the invasion and put it together, risking Japan falling to the USSR first. It also mean that the Japaneses would use their entire population (which was highly dedicated to Nationhood) on the Americans, major strategic points would have very brutal fighting over them (so the cities would be destroyed also, probably more than if the 2 nukes were used,) both sides would suffer huge amounts of bloodshed, particularly the Americans (far worse than D-Day on the first day, then not counting the whole thing, due to the terrain of Japan is favourable to defenders.)

Need more?

Reply Good karma Bad karma+3 votes
feillyne Author

MOSTLY civilians. Doesn't matter if there were more than 20% civilians of total casualties.

That's just a massacre.

Justify it as you want: it's a mass murder, worse than Iraq could ever dreamt of. And WMDs in Iraq were destroyed in previous years, prior to the unlawful invasion.

Your freedom ends where somebody else's freedom begins.
That's the RULE.

Do you want to support Bush's new definition of 'freedom'?

Forcing democracy on others isn't democratic, nor in any way related to freedom of choice.

I'm 100% sure nuking a field would be successful, too. Only murderers think otherwise, just to justify that they aren't murderers and that was 'necessary'.

That's ******** all the way. It would show the power, too. They could then send a threatening letter to Japan if they want more nukes.
They could use a nuke as a warning, not as a weapon of sheer mass murder ANYWAY.

Then that would be mostly Japan's fault for not surrending after a warning nuke.

Reply Good karma+1 vote

Civilian casualties have always been the highest in any war. For example, in Vietnam 58000 Americans died. 225000 South Vietnamese died. 1200 South Koreans died. 598 Australians died. 700000 NLF died. 1100000 North Vietnamese died. But 4 million Vietnamese died, many of whom were tortured to death by the NLF for supporting the Capitalist South Vietnamese, or were collateral damage as a result of USA Air Strikes, particularly during Operation Rolling Thunder. Had the USA chose to invade the Japanese homeland rather than nuking it, they would've undeniably been in the millions, not just one hundred thousand. Battles such as Stalingrad prove this.

Either way, it ended the war and the bloodshed that had been happening all throughout Asia and Europe, so I believe it was the right thing to do.

Also I am not a Bush supporter. I am not even American. I hate Bush, particularly for going into Iraq. Afghanistan is justified though - it ended the bloodshed between the Taliban and Mujahideen that had been going on since 1996. But Iraq was not.

Ultimately though there are no such things as war crimes. All's fair, love is war. The only crime is war itself.

Reply Good karma Bad karma+4 votes
feillyne Author

Yes... but you know that Afghanistan isn't finished yet. How long will it take to pull forces out of there?

Before it happens, there will be time to reap even bigger bloody harvest.

For your knowledge, I do not support any of my own gov't propaganda either.
They say that Soviets were only evil & bad, they were the only victims, they had to comply and co-op with the Soviet Union etc. but the truth is many Russians died under the Soviet/Stalin regime.

Soviets were Soviets. Communists were communists. That doesn't mean an entire nation was.

The same goes for expatriating, especially Poles by Nazis - they compelled Germany to pay huge amendments, but they are silent about many different peoples forced to leave the country after the communism moved in after WW2.

So if you say the Eastern countries sell weapons, no - they don't.
It's companies (also American ones) who sell various arms and materials to a specific country, often using some black-market methods.

It's just easier for e.g. former communist countries, but it really varies. There are many ways for e.g. African pirates to get arms. And I wouldn't say they aren't able to get the more advanced American stuff. They are.

Reply Good karma+1 vote

I know they are, they have it. For example, the Taliban's Small-Arms armoury consisted of about 40% American small arms. They gained these because the Americans gave them the guns to fight out the Soviets.

Also, it should be noted that the government controls what weapons their manufacturers make. They ban the ones they don't want them to make for certain groups. For example, in the USA Thompsons were available for the public between 1919-1934, being able to be bought for $175 per gun. They were banned, and no newer models of the Thompson were made until WW2 because they had no market that could buy them. By WW2, the British made a massive order for them and the M1928 model went into big productions once again. Then of course the Americans funded the later M1 and M1A1 models. To stop production of the weapon within one's own borders, they need only ban it within their country. Then the manufacturers will have to stop or find someone else to sell them too.

They control the weapons, but particularly in Capitalist countries private corporations often just find a new audience to sell to. Ain't no one in our own country who's going to buy it? We'll sell it to the Highest Bidder somewhere overseas!

But there's more demand for Eastern Bloc weapons, as well as the companies sell them very cheap due to large amounts of stock. Everyone knows the AK47 for example is cheap due to large quantities, is extremely reliable to use and has an ominous record of ******** over Western Small Arms since Vietnam and sadly these countries allow the manufacturers to create them within their borders.

Reply Good karma Bad karma+2 votes
feillyne Author

Yup, Kalashnikov had proven to be much more practical during the Vietnamese war.

Exactly, Americans gave them... and now they are besmirched as 'terrorists'. So much hypocrisy.

Some arms can be stolen in the country itself - stealing isn't a problem. Transferring them is. The bigger country and less secure, the easier is it for thieves or black-marketeers to smuggle arms to dealers.

So even if they stop the production of specific weapons, there always are some circulating, and they can be captured or 'lost'. And losing them isn't so calming as losing some petty wares.

Reply Good karma+1 vote

Personally, I'm of the belief that some American policy has a tendency to shoot itself in the foot.

For example - Vietnam & Korea. Both of these wars were intended to be used to protect freedoms of those oppressed by Communism. Ironically, many failed to spot the massive problem of the Civil Rights movement going on at the same time at home.

Hypocrisy is the name of the game, as a general rule.

Although, there are several countries that aren't particularly whiter than white either - Russia & France spring to mind here, and lets not even mention some of the more dubious regimes.

Reply Good karma Bad karma+2 votes
feillyne Author

Well, almost every government has a problem - almost every regime is somewhat dubious. That's because all officials are humans after all.

People are people, not just 'humans' as an excuse for their flaws, but also humans as those who have some ugly tendencies, sometimes even horrific ones. (Vide so many tyrants.)

A regime ends when there is too much abuse... or simply because it can't defend itself from any foreign interventions - one can recall what happened during an Iran coup some 50-60 years, in fact the first Iranian democracy was squashed by the US themselves.

Reply Good karma+1 vote
Post a comment
Sign in or join with:

Only registered members can share their thoughts. So come on! Join the community today (totally free - or sign in with your social account on the right) and join in the conversation.