War Crimes - Afghanistan

[Je suis Omar]

This was moved from another thread to minimize thread drift.

Je suis Omar, on 07 May 2015 - 3:25 PM, said:

How many military people are you aware of who refused to aid and support the illegal invasion of Afghanistan, Army Guy?

None, our military is so small it would be impossible not to aid or support the Afganistan mission in one way or the other, was there soldiers who refused to take part in the direct operations in Afghanistan due to moral obligations yes. But those numbers were very small.

Were they muffled? I'd love to hear more about them.

Does this reflect on our how professional our military members are, please explain.

The whole debate on wether this conflict is illegal or not is still ongoing, there are plenty of online sites authored by some legal begals that say yes it was. They quote that art 5 does not cover the U.S. invasion, because the terrorist " bin ladies groups " were not considered a state actor, but rather a group within the state. And yet there is plenty of info out there that says other wise, That Bin ladins group of thugs were in fact part of the the talibans military force, used to fight and keep the peace within the country, taking out policitical opposition,and solving other policitical problems for the Taliban through the use of force.

Of course ignorant people, non-pejorative sense, can't be held responsible for joining up - they are as duped by government lies as are citizens.

Article 5, NATO, I presume, does not take precedence over international law. That's no different than the Axis powers of WWII.

The invasion of Afghanistan was a war crime under international law. It was no different than what the Nazis were tried for at Nuremberg, or the Japanese at Tokyo.

In 1945, in the wake of two wars that claimed millions of lives, the nations of the world created the United Nations system to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war. The UN Charter is based on the principles of international peace and security as well as the protection of human rights. But the United States, one of the founding members of the UN, has often flouted the commands of the charter, which is part of US law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

Although the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was as illegal as the invasion of Iraq, many Americans saw it as a justifiable response to the attacks of September 11, 2001. The cover of Time magazine called it "The Right War." Obama campaigned on ending the Iraq war but escalating the war in Afghanistan. But a majority of Americans now oppose that war as well.

The UN Charter provides that all member states must settle their international disputes by peaceful means, and no nation can use military force except in self-defense or when authorized by the Security Council. After the 9/11 attacks, the council passed two resolutions, neither of which authorized the use of military force in Afghanistan.

Operation Enduring Freedom was not legitimate self-defense under the charter because the 9/11 attacks were crimes against humanity, not armed attacks by another country. Afghanistan did not attack the United States. In fact, 15 of the 19 hijackers hailed from Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, there was not an imminent threat of an armed attack on the United States after 9/11, or President Bush would not have waited three weeks before initiating his October 2001 bombing campaign. The necessity for self-defense must be instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation. This classic principle of self-defense in international law has been affirmed by the Nuremberg Tribunal and the UN General Assembly.

http://www.marjoriecohn.com/2009/12/obamas-af-pak-war-is-illegal.html?m=1

[bush_cheney2004]

The invasion of Afghanistan was a war crime under international law. It was no different than what the Nazis were tried for at Nuremberg, or the Japanese at Tokyo.

So when will the war crimes trials begin ? Better have lots of seating because many nations participated....way different from "Nazis".

Also...why is this in Canada > Federal Politics part of the forum ? Because PM Chretien is a war criminal ?

Edited May 8, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[On Guard for Thee]

So far Bush and the boys have escaped going to court mostly due to the Westfall Act, but they are far from out of the woods yet. Ever notice they dont travel outside their home borders much these days...

[Army Guy]

Omar:

I assume by muffled you mean by talking to the media, no like I said before the conflict in Afghanistan was popular at the time media was not looking for those that did not support the conflict, Also a piont to note that every soldier that was sent had volunteered, each was asked and conciled by serveral different layers of the Chain of command , ie doctors, Padres, family councillors, your supervisors, plus you had to pass all your training. So there was plenty of oportunities to not go...if that was their goal...

As for muffled by the Chain of command , or held back for promotions etc....Once again no, it really was not a big deal, besides there was a huge pool of volunteers to pick from....

I don' t think you fully get the reason why most join the military, we were not duped into anything, nor given any misinformation about the conflict. We knew exactly what we were getting into and why. Like I have stated in the past today's military is not a bunch of lower IQ rednecks as some seem to think, recruitment skyrocketed during the entire conflict, those that joined wanted to make a difference , they wanted to be directly involved in the conflict, to make a difference, instead of being an arm chair critic. Terrorist were considered a threat to our way of life and are still today.

Art 5 NATO is taken from inter national law, or are you saying that a nation does not have the right to defend itself under inter national law?

As for the conflict being illegal that is still being debated , at a much higher level than you or me could hope to aspire to.

There is still the piont that Bin Ladin and his merry band of thugs were indeed part of the Taliban regime, and they formed an integral part of their military. Operating under Taliban rule, suppressing policitical rivals, suppressing other opposing groups.....not to mention the afghan people, so one would have to ask did these terrorist work for the Taliban regime and if so did that make them part of the state....if this is true then does that not throw out the corner stone of the "illiegal" conflict supporters.

[Charles Anthony]

Also...why is this in Canada > Federal Politics part of the forum ?

The thread has been moved.

[PIK]

When you join the army you no longer have rights. You do what you are told to do. That is the way it works.

[bush_cheney2004]

When you join the army you no longer have rights. You do what you are told to do. That is the way it works.

Yep...pretty much. You take an oath to follow lawful orders and defend against all enemies (foreign and domestic), not to pitch a fit about imperialism, U.S. backed terrorism, or so called "social justice" every time a mission or deployment comes up. Canadian Forces also swear allegiance to the reigning monarch IIRC.

"War Crimes" is a general term for very specific offenses and charges that are defined by treaty and convention. You can't just jump up and yell "WAR CRIME!" whenever a policy or action offends one's political or social values and make it stick.

Edited May 8, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[Je suis Omar]

There is still the piont that Bin Ladin and his merry band of thugs were indeed part of the Taliban regime, and they formed an integral part of their military. Operating under Taliban rule, suppressing policitical rivals, suppressing other opposing groups.....not to mention the afghan people

The Taliban and Al Qaeda were friends and close associates of the USA. Both were created, funded, trained and supported whatever their actions were against the Afghan people.

Afghanistan, the CIA, bin Laden,

and the Taliban

by Phil Gasper

...

U.S. government was well aware of the Taliban's reactionary program, yet it chose to back their rise to power in the mid-1990s. The creation of the Taliban was "actively encouraged by the ISI and the CIA," according to Selig Harrison, an expert on U.S. relations with Asia. "The United States encouraged Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to support the Taliban, certainly right up to their advance on Kabul," adds respected journalist Ahmed Rashid. When the Taliban took power, State Department spokesperson Glyn Davies said that he saw "nothing objectionable" in the Taliban's plans to impose strict Islamic law, and Senator Hank Brown, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on the Near East and South Asia, welcomed the new regime: "The good part of what has happened is that one of the factions at last seems capable of developing a new government in Afghanistan." "The Taliban will probably develop like the Saudis. There will be Aramco [the consortium of oil companies that controlled Saudi oil], pipelines, an emir, no parliament and lots of Sharia law. We can live with that," said another U.S. diplomat in 1997.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Afghanistan/Afghanistan_CIA_Taliban.html

Rule of law countries are supposed to follow, well, the rule of law. There was no threat as described by international law to the USA after 911.

Consider the threat Afghans faced from USA terrorism post 1979, where the USA specifically used the Afghan people as cannon fodder for their own nefarious ends.

Edited May 8, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[Je suis Omar]

Examples of the USA callously using the Afghan people simply to position USA companies. In other words, the rankest greed.

The CIA's anticommunist jihad

President Jimmy Carter immediately declared that the invasion jeopardized vital U.S. interests, because the Persian Gulf area was "now threatened by Soviet troops in Afghanistan. But the Carter administration's public outrage at Russian intervention in Afghanistan was doubly duplicitous. Not only was it used as an excuse for a program of increased military expenditure that had in fact already begun, but the U.S. had in fact been aiding the mujahideen for at least the previous six months, with precisely the hope of provoking a Soviet response. Former CIA director Robert Gates later admitted in his memoirs that aid to the rebels began in June 1979. In a candid 1998 interview, Zbigniew Brezinski, Carter's national security adviser, confirmed that U.S. aid to the rebels began before the invasion:

According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the mujahideen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan [in] December 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: indeed, it was July 3, 1979, that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.... We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would....

That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap.... The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War."

The Carter administration was well aware that in backing the mujahideen it was supporting forces with reactionary social goals, but this was outweighed by its own geopolitical interests. In August 1979, a classified State Department report bluntly asserted that "the United States' larger interest...would be served by the demise of the Taraki-Amin regime, despite whatever setbacks this might mean for future social and economic reforms in Afghanistan." That same month, in a stunning display of hypocrisy, State Department spokesperson Hodding Carter piously announced that the U.S. "expect the principle of nonintervention to be respected by all parties in the area, including the Soviet Union."

The Russian invasion in December was the signal for U.S. support to the Afghan rebels to increase dramatically.

Ibid

[Army Guy]

I've read your source, it's an opinion base article written by one guy, who happens to have the same opinion as you. What it lacks is proof positive that supports your claim that the U.S. created, supported, funded,and trained the Taliban or BIn Ladins groups of terrorists.

As for the threats to the U.S., I guess what you and the others are forgetting that 9/11 attacks claimed the lives over 3000 US citizens plus scores of others including almost 30 Canadian lives that day....and Bin Ladin took responsibility for that attack, and had also said that there would be more.....not sure what country your from, but here in Canada that is a threat.

Not a humanitarian threat as suggested by others that support this "illegal" conflict side of the debate but a threat to security of the nation.

Unless you have proof that Bin Ladin was done, one attack was enough. How could any president sit back any even consider no action be taken, it be written off as a non state attack, without bringing to the American people those responsible ....

Countries do negotiate differences every day, and when they can't the use the last policitical tool left their militaries. The U.S. gave the Taliban regime 2 weeks to respond by handing over Bin Ladin , or they would come and get him. They refused to meet those demands, and well sir, the rest is history, they got both horns.

[Je suis Omar]

I've read your source, it's an opinion base article written by one guy, who happens to have the same opinion as you. What it lacks is proof positive that supports your claim that the U.S. created, supported, funded,and trained the Taliban or BIn Ladins groups of terrorists.

Let's take this one step at a time.

It has USA government officials admitting that.

"Robert Gates later admitted in his memoirs that aid to the rebels began in June 1979. In a candid 1998 interview, Zbigniew Brezinski, Carter's national security adviser, confirmed that U.S. aid to the rebels began before the invasion. "

Context of 'December 4, 1997: Taliban Representatives Visit Unocal in Texas'

This is a scalable context timeline. It contains events related to the event December 4, 1997: Taliban Representatives Visit Unocal in Texas. You can narrow or broaden the context of this timeline by adjusting the zoom level. The lower the scale, the more relevant the items on average will be, while the higher the scale, the less relevant the items, on average, will be.

1984-1994: CIA Funds Militant Textbooks for Afghanistan

The US, through USAID and the University of Nebraska, spends millions of dollars developing and printing textbooks for Afghan schoolchildren. The textbooks are filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings, part of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation. For instance, children are taught to count with illustrations showing tanks, missiles, and land mines. Lacking any alternative, millions of these textbooks are used long after 1994; the Taliban will still be using them in 2001. In 2002, the US will start producing less violent versions of the same books, which President Bush says will have respect for human dignity, instead of indoctrinating students with fanaticism and bigotry. (He will fail to mention who created those earlier books.) [WASHINGTON POST, 3/23/2002; CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, 5/6/2002] A University of Nebraska academic named Thomas Gouttierre leads the textbook program. Journalist Robert Dreyfuss will later reveal that although funding for Gouttierres work went through USAID, it was actually paid for by the CIA. Unocal will pay Gouttierre to work with the Taliban (see December 1997) and he will host visits of Taliban leaders to the US, including trips in 1997 and 1999 (see December 4, 1997 and July-August 1999). [DREYFUSS, 2005, PP. 328]

Entity Tags: USAID, University of Nebraska, Taliban, George W. Bush, Thomas Gouttierre, Central Intelligence Agency

Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, Domestic Propaganda, War in Afghanistan

1996-September 11, 2001: Enron Gives Taliban Millions in Bribes in Effort to Get Afghan Pipeline Built

The Associated Press will later report that the Enron corporation bribes Taliban officials as part of a no-holds-barred bid to strike a deal for an energy pipeline in Afghanistan. Atul Davda, a senior director for Enrons International Division, will later claim, Enron had intimate contact with Taliban officials. Presumably this effort began around 1996, when a power plant Enron was building in India ran into trouble and Enron began an attempt to supply it with natural gas via a planned pipeline through Afghanistan (see 1995-November 2001 and June 24, 1996). In 1997, Enron executives privately meet with Taliban officials in Texas (see December 4, 1997). They are given the red-carpet treatment and promised a fortune if the deal [goes] through. It is alleged Enron secretly employs CIA agents to carry out its dealings overseas. According to a CIA source, Enron proposed to pay the Taliban large sums of money in a tax on every cubic foot of gas and oil shipped through a pipeline they planned to build. This source claims Enron paid more than $400 million for a feasibility study on the pipeline and a large portion of that cost was pay-offs to the Taliban. Enron continues to encourage the Taliban about the pipeline even after Unocal officially gives up on the pipeline in the wake of the African embassy bombings (see December 5, 1998). An investigation after Enrons collapse in 2001 (see December 2, 2001) will determine that some of this pay-off money ended up funding al-Qaeda. [ASSOCIATED PRESS, 3/7/2002]

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a120497texasvisit

The following from the BBC.

Taleban in Texas for talks on gas pipeline

A senior delegation from the Taleban movement in Afghanistan is in the United States for talks with an international energy company that wants to construct a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan.

A spokesman for the company, Unocal, said the Taleban were expected to spend several days at the company's headquarters in Sugarland, Texas.

Unocal says it has agreements both with Turkmenistan to sell its gas and with Pakistan to buy it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm

[Shady]

So far Bush and the boys have escaped going to court mostly due to the Westfall Act, but they are far from out of the woods yet. Ever notice they dont travel outside their home borders much these days...

Must be why Chrétien doesn't travel much either.

[On Guard for Thee]

Must be why Chrétien doesn't travel much either.

He doesnt have to worry. He said no to Iraq recall. Plus hes never been convicted such as Bush and co. have.

[Shady]

He doesnt have to worry. He said no to Iraq recall. Plus hes never been convicted such as Bush and co. have.

He must have to worry. He doesn't travel much. Just like Bush or Cheney.

[Army Guy]

Omar:

You stated that the Taliban and Al Queda were close friends and associates. That they created,funded, trained and supported what ever their actions were again'st the Afghan people......I ask you for proof and what I think you give me is the following .

Your source states the US was aware of the Talibans existence, means what exactly US is aware of a lot of groups and organization it also does business with them in many different ways.....much like Canada, or for that matter most countries.....it also states that ISI and CIA encouraged the creation of the Taliban, but does not say what encourage mean......it also states the US encouraged Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia to support the Taliban....again what does encouraged mean....it does not spell it out, it leaves a lot to the imagination.

I wish I could encourage you to provide proof positive sources the ones that show a smoking gun you claim is out there.

Your second link

The U.S. provided some aid to opponents of the pro soviet regime. The same one the Soviets installed after a bloody coup, and yet it does not identify who that opponent was,

Taliban was not created until 1994, which precludes them, and Al Queda was formed shortly after so that aid was to pre mujahideen groups in order to counter soviet expansion....

It also speculates that this aid might have started the soviet invasion....and yet I highily doubt that the soviets had occupation in mind well before they installed their puppet government, when it did not go to plan they sent in the troops...there is no proof that the US actions started the soviet invasion, just speculation.....

Your third source I'm sorry I not following , it claims the CIA provided funding , but it's source claims USAID and the university of Nebraska provided text books to the mujahideen , which later were used by the Taliban.....OK but what does all this prove,

You also mention that a U.S. company entertained Taliban representives in hope of a pipe line deal, well the Taliban were the major player in the region even though they did not control all of Afghanistan. These type of deals happen all the time, infact there is no pipe line today.....anti war buffs have been stating this was one of the reasons the US went to war was this supposed pipeline.....and with all the billions spent in Afghanistan , and 10 years of conflict, one would think that pipeline would have been built years ago.....still no pipe line and that US company lost it's shirt in that deal.....sorry move along no conspiracy here...".

Overall you have not proved a thing that proves your original statement.....nor have you commented on how this conflict was illegal.

[Big Guy]

To Army Guy - How has Canadian military involvement in Afghanistan made Canada safer?

[Army Guy]

I think we've had this conversation a couple of times, each ending in both us agreeing to disagree.

The Taliban and Al Queda have proved they did!nt need aircraft carriers or amphibious ves to bring war or conflict to any shore. They had the financial means to organize and carry out their terror campaign any where in the world. The fact they had chosen the US sent a huge message that these terror networks were not afraid of any nation or the consequences. They had said they would target any western country....that included Canada....I think this is a major concern to our politcians. I think a 9/11 sized attack on any canadian city would have crippled us for a lot longer than the US. It may not have made the same statement , but it would have effected us more.

I think it scared us all to think anyone with an extreme view could bring their terror any where. Those Responsable had to be held accountable, the powers to be agreed that the terrorist network had to destroyed. For couple reasons to show others there would severe consequences for further attacks, and to possibly prevent further attacks. At the time this sounded reasonable to most western nations.

[On Guard for Thee]

He must have to worry. He doesn't travel much. Just like Bush or Cheney.

He hasnt been convicted of anything. He can travel without worry.

[Shady]

He hasnt been convicted of anything. He can travel without worry.

Yeah but he doesn't travel much at all. Just like Bush.

[Je suis Omar]

..nor have you commented on how this conflict was illegal.

Obama's Af-Pak War is Illegal

...

In 1945, in the wake of two wars that claimed millions of lives, the nations of the world created the United Nations system to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war. The UN Charter is based on the principles of international peace and security as well as the protection of human rights. But the United States, one of the founding members of the UN, has often flouted the commands of the charter, which is part of US law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

Although the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was as illegal as the invasion of Iraq, many Americans saw it as a justifiable response to the attacks of September 11, 2001. The cover of Time magazine called it "The Right War." Obama campaigned on ending the Iraq war but escalating the war in Afghanistan. But a majority of Americans now oppose that war as well.

The UN Charter provides that all member states must settle their international disputes by peaceful means, and no nation can use military force except in self-defense or when authorized by the Security Council. After the 9/11 attacks, the council passed two resolutions, neither of which authorized the use of military force in Afghanistan.

Operation Enduring Freedom was not legitimate self-defense under the charter because the 9/11 attacks were crimes against humanity, not armed attacks by another country. Afghanistan did not attack the United States. In fact, 15 of the 19 hijackers hailed from Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, there was not an imminent threat of an armed attack on the United States after 9/11, or President Bush would not have waited three weeks before initiating his October 2001 bombing campaign. The necessity for self-defense must be instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation. This classic principle of self-defense in international law has been affirmed by the Nuremberg Tribunal and the UN General Assembly.

http://www.marjoriecohn.com/2009/12/obamas-af-pak-war-is-illegal.html?m=1

[Michael Hardner]

I think we've had this conversation a couple of times, each ending in both us agreeing to disagree.

Maybe so, but still thanks for your measured and succinct response.

Canada's response to things like the 9/11 attack, or ISIS challenge us to engage with each other as to what our principles are with regards to armed conflict - what we as Canadians feel we should do to protect ourselves and others.

Thank you.

[Je suis Omar]

I think we've had this conversation a couple of times, each ending in both us agreeing to disagree.

.

As Noam Chomsky says, Army Guy, the way to stop terrorism is to not engage in it. Canada has been supporting USA terrorism for a good long time, albeit, rather sneakily, not to mention hypocritically.

The USA has been terrorizing poor nations for well over a century. It has been terrorizing Cuba since it pretended a liberation of countries from Spanish rule in its 1898 war against Spain.

The USA certainly didn't invent terrorism but they have, over a century of determined practice, honed it to a fine art.

"As General Assembly Demands End to Cuba Blockade for Twenty-Third Consecutive Year, Countrys Foreign Minister Cites Losses Exceeding $1 Trillion"

That quote, actually the title of an article, from the UN, describes how, for the 23rd year running, the UN General Assembly has voted 188 to 2 (USA and Israel) for the USA to end its terrorist blockade of Cuba.

Read it at,

http://www.un.org/press/en/2014/ga11574.doc.htm

Canada too voted in favor of the USA stopping its terrorist actions. Have we seen Canada put economic sanctions on the USA for its terrorism against Cuba? Why not?

Why do you think that Central and South American countries have set up a new counterpart to the USA dominated OAS, CELAC, which shuts out the USA and its little puppet, Canada, plus some European puppets.

Do you think that all these Central and South American countries have all been reading internet conspiracy theories about USA terrorism, which caused them to take this huge step?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_of_Latin_American_and_Caribbean_States

"In an interview in February 2010, President Evo Morales of Bolivia said, "A union of Latin American countries is the weapon against imperialism. It is necessary to create a regional body that excludes the United States and Canada. ...Where there are U.S. military bases that do not respect democracy, where there is a political empire with his blackmailers, with its constraints, there is no development for that country, and especially there is no social peace and, therefore, it is the best time for prime ministers of Latin America and the Caribbean to gestate this great new organization without the United States to free our peoples in Latin America and the Caribbean."[10]

Edited May 9, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[Big Guy]

To Army Guy - I now do recall our previous disagreements. I continue to respect and disagree with your point of view. Thanks for answering.

[Michael Hardner]

To Army Guy - I now do recall our previous disagreements. I continue to respect and disagree with your point of view. Thanks for answering.

Because I wasn't part of those discussions - what part of AG's response do you disagree with ? Do you think that no response was required ? Do you think that the US shouldn't have responded or should have responded differently ?

[Je suis Omar]

Must be why Chrétien doesn't travel much either.

Do you think this may be why Malaysian Airlines has lately been having a spot of trouble, Shady?

Bush Convicted of War Crimes in Absentia

by Yvonne Ridley May 12, 2012

Kuala Lumpur Its official; George W Bush is a war criminal.

In what is the first ever conviction of its kind anywhere in the world, the former US President and seven key members of his administration were yesterday (Fri) found guilty of war crimes.

Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their legal advisers Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, William Haynes, Jay Bybee and John Yoo were tried in absentia in Malaysia.

The trial held in Kuala Lumpur heard harrowing witness accounts from victims of torture who suffered at the hands of US soldiers and contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan.

They included testimony from British man Moazzam Begg, an ex-Guantanamo detainee and Iraqi woman Jameelah Abbas Hameedi who was tortured in the notorious Abu Ghraib prison.

At the end of the week-long hearing, the five-panel tribunal unanimously delivered guilty verdicts against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their key legal advisors who were all convicted as war criminals for torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment.

...

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/05/12/bush-convicted-of-war-crimes-in-absentia/

Edited May 9, 2015 by Je suis Omar