Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama’s Af-Pak War is Illegal
President Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize nine days after he announced he would send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. His escalation of that war is not what the Nobel committee envisioned when it sought to encourage him to make peace, not war.
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.
Bush's justification for attacking Afghanistan was that it was harboring Osama bin Laden and training terrorists, even though bin Laden did not claim responsibility for the 9/11 attacks until 2004. After Bush demanded that the Taliban turn over bin Laden to the United States, the Taliban's ambassador to Pakistan said his government wanted proof that bin Laden was involved in the 9/11 attacks before deciding whether to extradite him, according to the Washington Post. That proof was not forthcoming, the Taliban did not deliver bin Laden, and Bush began bombing Afghanistan.
Bush's rationale for attacking Afghanistan was spurious. Iranians could have made the same argument to attack the United States after they overthrew the vicious Shah Reza Pahlavi in 1979 and the U.S. gave him safe haven. If the new Iranian government had demanded that the U.S. turn over the Shah and we refused, would it have been lawful for Iran to invade the United States? Of course not.
When he announced his troop "surge" in Afghanistan, Obama invoked the 9/11 attacks. By continuing and escalating Bush's war in Afghanistan, Obama, too, is violating the UN Charter. In his speech accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, Obama declared that he has the "right" to wage wars "unilaterally." The unilateral use of military force, however, is illegal unless undertaken in self-defense.
Those who conspired to hijack airplanes and kill thousands of people on 9/11 are guilty of crimes against humanity. They must be identified and brought to justice in accordance with the law. But retaliation by invading Afghanistan was not the answer. It has lead to growing U.S. and Afghan casualties, and has incurred even more hatred against the United States.
Conspicuously absent from the national discourse is a political analysis of why the tragedy of 9/11 occurred. We need to have that debate and construct a comprehensive strategy to overhaul U.S. foreign policy to inoculate us from the wrath of those who despise American imperialism. The "global war on terror" has been uncritically accepted by most in this country. But terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy. One cannot declare war on a tactic. The way to combat terrorism is by identifying and targeting its root causes, including poverty, lack of education, and foreign occupation.
In his declaration that he would send 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan, Obama made scant reference to Pakistan. But his CIA has used more unmanned Predator drones against Pakistan than Bush. There are estimates that these robots have killed several hundred civilians. Most Pakistanis oppose them. A Gallup poll conducted in Pakistan last summer found 67% opposed and only 9% in favor. Notably, a majority of Pakistanis ranked the United States as a greater threat to Pakistan than the Taliban or Pakistan's arch-rival India.
Many countries use drones for surveillance, but only the United States and Israel have used them for strikes. Scott Shane wrote in the New York Times, "For the first time in history, a civilian intelligence agency is using robots to carry out a military mission, selecting people for targeted killings in a country where the United States is not officially at war."
The use of these drones in Pakistan violates both the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit willful killing. Targeted or political assassinations-sometimes called extrajudicial executions-are carried out by order of, or with the acquiescence of, a government, outside any judicial framework. As a 1998 report from the UN Special Rapporteur noted, "extrajudicial executions can never be justified under any circumstances, not even in time of war." Willful killing is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions, punishable as a war crime under the U.S. War Crimes Act. Extrajudicial executions also violate a longstanding U.S. policy. In the 1970s, after the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence disclosed that the CIA had been involved in several murders or attempted murders of foreign leaders, President Gerald Ford issued an executive order banning assassinations. Although there have been exceptions to this policy, every succeeding president until George W. Bush reaffirmed that order.
Obama is trying to make up for his withdrawal from Iraq by escalating the war on Afghanistan. He is acting like Lyndon Johnson, who rejected Defense Secretary Robert McNamara's admonition about Vietnam because LBJ was "more afraid of the right than the left," McNamara said in a 2007 interview with Bob Woodward published in the Washington Post.
Approximately 30% of all U.S. deaths in Afghanistan have occurred during Obama's presidency. The cost of the war, including the 30,000 new troops he just ordered, will be about $100 billion a year. That money could better be used for building schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and creating jobs and funding health care in the United States.
Many congressional Democrats are uncomfortable with Obama's decision to send more troops to Afghanistan. We must encourage them to hold firm and refuse to fund this war. And the left needs to organize and demonstrate to Obama that we are a force with which he must contend.
- Posted in
74 Comments so far
Show AllCharter this and convention that
it is murder
state sponsored murder
I once a conservative old windbag on TV saying no politician would ever beak his heart again, talking about Nixon.
I thought that was pretty stupid. Was he in love with the old crook?
Obama didn't break my heart, but he damn sure as hell convinced me that presidents don't have power. Maybe they never did, I don't know, but corporations call ALL the shots now.
They think they have bought me and people like me off with a measly pension, just enough so we won't join the desperately poor against them.
And the MLK of human kindness won't stop Obama's armies (to paraphrase his own self)!
Marjorie, you convincingly argue that the so-called wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are/were illegal under international conventions/laws.
However, I think that our current military presence in Iraq is no longer illegal in that sense given the SOFA agreement signed by President Bush with an Iraqi government accepted as legal by the international community. In essence that presence is the same as our military presence in Germany or Japan.
As far as the pro-war American public is concerned, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were legal because our Congress funded these wars. Given the 1990 ruling of the US Supreme Court, that is correct.
odoco
Crowsnest: there was much discussion at the time whether or not the SOFA agreement constituted a TREATY, which would have to then be voted on by the entire Senate - do you recall that debate? Is this a constitutionally valid question?
Odoco
This article is about the international aspects of our "wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan. With regards to the Iraq SOFA agreement, international law does not care whether the US Senate has ratified this agreement (even if this is not treaty, it is an agreement between the governments of two sovereign UN member-states) nor does that law wonder whether your question is (US) constitutionally valid.
The Iraqi side negotiated hard and President Bush had to cave in on the date of total removal of US soldiers. Bush had wanted a vague statement but no date certain but he lost. Should the international community be allowed to punish the Iraqi's and declare SOFA illegal merely because the US Senate has not ratified the agreement? The Iraq side got almost everything they wanted. The UN answer to such questions is an unequivocal no because Iraq SOFA was fairly negotiated between the constitutionally acknowledged executives of both governments. Even if the Iraq SOFA is considered only "intent" by our side the UN considers it to be binding on both sides.
There have been plenty of examples of identical situations, for example with regards to German involvement in Bosnia. Furthermore, we have SOFA agreements with numerous nations, among others with Germany and Japan. Does it matter whether these agreements are treaties? I have not heard a single peep because it does not matter.
I disagree.
Both invasions were military aggression, as defined under international law.
The Constitution requires a declaration of war, not some window dressing to "justify" military aggression brought under fraud.
If these wars were legal, they would have been declared by the legislative branch in accordance with constitutional procedures.
Chupacabra
With regards to the Constitution requiring a "declaration of war" you are abysmally poorly informed. The 1990 ruling of the US Supreme Court in Campbell v. Clinton states in essence that the congressional funding of a specific war is the equivalent of a congressional declaration of that war hence both invasions became constitutionally legal after the first funding for each war was passed by congress and signed into law by President Bush. It is unfortunate but is nevertheless true that the Supreme Court established a constitutional "declaration of war in retrospect". If you doubt me write Representative Kucinich who was one of the co-sponsors of Campbell because he can shed much light on your false crusade.
It is no wonder that Kucinich is one of the few congresspersons who understands that the only constitutionally legal method of stopping the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has been refusing to fund these wars all along and has acted accordingly. He knows that funding is the legal crux. Passing resolutions to end the wars and/or fulminating against the wars on websites are useless as long as the funding continues.
International laws that cannot be enforced may be fine moral fodder but are dangerously useless exactly because they cannot be enforced if one of the "Big Five" votes no in the Security Council.
I'm not a lawyer, but according to http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/99-1072.htm, the Supreme Court decided in Campbell v. Clinton that the plaintiffs (certain members of Congress) did not have standing to bring the lawsuit, and therefore dismissed the case. That's not the same as ruling the congressional funding makes a war legal.
Does the executive have the power to refuse to carry out a congressional mandate, i. c. wage a specific war for which the congress has provided funds? I think that the congressional mandate trumps any executive refusal or else you believe in the "unitary presidency". I think that a president risks impeachment if he/she does not carry out a congressional mandate especially when the congress holds that the action is demanded by national security, real or trumped up. A president has only one choice when the funding comes to his/her desk: either sign or veto. When a veto is overridden he/she has only one choice: sign or resign.
Yes, but why did the SC rule that they had no standing?
Sorry that I always seem to print 1990 instead of 1999. Here are the significant sentences of the ruling of the district court:
Because plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate an actual confrontation or constitutional impasse between the legislative and executive branches, they have no standing to bring this action.
This is not to say that members of the legislative branch never have standing to resort to the judicial branch when the executive branch flouts the law. But the courts will apply Raines and Coleman rigorously and will find standing only in the clearest cases of vote nullification and genuine impasse between the political branches. Under the circumstances presented in this case, the Court cannot conclude that plaintiffs have standing to bring this action, and the case therefore will be dismissed. An Order and Judgment consistent with this Opinion will be issued this same day.
The crucial two words are "vote nullification". Refusing to carry out a congressional mandate signed into law is "vote nullification", is it not?
You originally stated that the Campbell v. Clinton ruling "established that a war becomes 'legal' when congress votes funding for that war." That appears to be incorrect. The ruling actually finds that the legislators who brought suit did not have legal standing to do so, and so the Supreme Court dismissed the lawsuit.
The question of why the Court ruled that the legislators lacked legal standing is different. Note that the Court did not say that President Clinton had not violated the Constitution (or other laws); it merely determined that the legislators had no legal right to sue the President for those alleged violations. So it seems to me that the Campbell v. Clinton case does nothing to counter the author's contention that Obama is committing illegal acts. It does probably show that Congress unable to stop the wars by bringing suit in court. But of course, they could stop the wars if they wanted to by cutting off funding for them.
I don't quite understand the intent of your last sentence. If you mean to say that Obama is legally compelled to continue the wars because Congress granted him the power to do so, that argument clearly won't hold water.
Chupacabra
With regards to the Constitution requiring a "declaration of war" you are abysmally poorly informed. The 1990 ruling of the US Supreme Court in Campbell v. Clinton states in essence that the congressional funding of a specific war is the equivalent of a congressional declaration of that war hence both invasions became constitutionally legal after the first funding for each war was passed by congress and signed into law by President Bush. It is unfortunate but is nevertheless true that the Supreme Court established a constitutional "declaration of war in retrospect". If you doubt me write Representative Kucinich who was one of the co-sponsors of Campbell because he can shed much light on your false crusade.
It is no wonder that Kucinich is one of the few congresspersons who understands that the only constitutionally legal method of stopping the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has been refusing to fund these wars all along and has acted accordingly. He knows that funding is the legal crux. Passing resolutions to end the wars and/or fulminating against the wars on websites are useless as long as the funding continues.
International laws that cannot be enforced may be fine moral fodder but are dangerously useless exactly because they cannot be enforced if one of the "Big Five" votes no in the Security Council.
Excellent article. As Ms. Cohn states, those who hijacked the airplanes on 9/11/01 "must be identified and brought to justice in accordance to the law." Ms. Cohn's point would have been even more germane if she would told her readers that the BBC had noted, back in 2002 I believe, that about six of the nineteen hijackers had been reported to have been alive and well in the Middle East when the hijackings occurred on 9/11/01. One of them had even gone to the American embassy in one of the Middle East countries to protest his innocence. Unfortunately, as expected, this story received almost no attention in the American mainstream media. If they had reported the story, then perhaps it could have shown how incredibly flimsy was the Bush administration's attempt to claim who these hijackers were and which therefore puts into serious doubt the rest of their other claims as to what occurred on that fateful day.
As a document that came out under the auspices of The Project For A New American Century stated, what was needed to implement the policies of the neoconservatives in the Middle East was a "new Pearl Harbor" to occur in this country. What should not be forgotten is that without 9/11/01 the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq do not occur. What also immensely helped their cause was a compliant media which were willing to print with almost no challenge whatsoever the deceptions and falsehoods the Bush administration put forth concerning the events that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001. All this was also corroborated and rubber stamped by the less than effectual 9/11 Commission Report which was headed by Bush insider Philip Zelikow.
Am I the only one who thought it suspicious that on 9/10/01, according to testimony, no one in the US government could envision the kind of attack that happened the next day but on 9/12 we suddenly knew the identity and life history of every hijacker? How'd we get so smart so soon?
The first words out of my mouth after the first tower fell,
"Boy was that lucky it fell straight down."
And then the second tower fell down as if by controlled demolition. And then building seven collapsed the same way, however it was not hit by a plane. Oh I forgot, questioning the irrational fairy-tale official story of 9/11 is the work of crazy, lunatic conspiracy nuts.
Northwoods
I agree, we have violated international law. Will we ever face a consequence for doing so?
Here's a good complementary article.
"September 11, 2001: America and NATO Declare War on Afghanistan
NATO's Doctrine of Collective Security"
by Michel Chossudovsky, Dec 21, 2009
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16573
Professor Chossudovsky refers readers to the two related UNSC resolutions, but the pages wouldn't load for me; being told that I am not authorised access. I'm not sure if they're html copies of the resolutions that some people have authorisation to view, but did some searching and found the SC Resolutions index for 2001 and clicking on the two resolutions Prof. Chossudovsky specifically refers to provides copies in PDF format.
UNSC Resolutions for 2001 (resolutions 1368 and 1373),
http://www.un.org/docs/scres/2001/sc2001.htm
He excerpts the or at least a pertinent part of the resolutions in his above article at GR, but some CD'ers may want to read the full resolutions. 1368 is less than a page long, while 1373 is roughly two pages.
Like he says, it hasn't been really proven that Osama Bin Ladin or even Al Qaeda are responsible for the 9-11 attacks; it's the Afghan government, the aka "Taliban regime", that the U.S. and NATO have always been really warring against while that government wasn't involved in the 9-11 attacks, as Bush Jr correctly declared prior to launching the war; and the Taliban offered to hand OBL over to "U.S. justice" on two occassions between 9-11, 2001 and the day of the launch of the war, Oct. 7, 2001, as long as sufficient evidence against OBL for these attacks was provided. The Bush Jr-Cheney administration criminally rejected these offers from the Taliban and this, in itself, is criminal to do.
We also know that Osama bin Ladin denied responsibility for the 9-11 attacks and that ... to this day, Dec. 21, 2009, and the U.S. still hasn't charged him for these attacks; as is verifiable with the FBI's website. The U.S. DoJ or Supreme Court hasn't ruled that OBL is guilty for or in these attacks.
Prof. Chossudovsky's article also tells readers about how NATO came to resolve or decide (albeit it was already decided before 9-11) that it would ally itself with the U.S. in the war on Afghanistan. It's quite some "funky" war-making business that NATO then committed!
This war is definitely criminal and always has been. It wasn't authorised by the UNSC and shouldn't even pass as justifiable according to the U.S. Constitution in a truly just court of law. After all, and again, the U.S. still hasn't charged OBL for the crime and Bush stated prior to the launch of the war that the Taliban had had nothing to do with the attacks.
Continuing the criminal war that Bush Jr, Cheney, ... launched is equally criminal! So, the Af-Pak war, or expanding the war into other countries that also had nothing to do with the 9-11 attacks, is even more criminal. And racking up supreme international crimes is definitely the wrong path to be on; while Obama holds firmly to trying to be a high scorer or racker of (supreme) criminality.
If Obama is truly a constitutional law expert, then his conduct is the contrary and this'd make him even more criminal than if he wasn't an expert in this law; imo, anyway.
I also doubt the constitutionality of Congress handing their "birthright", the power to declare war, over to the executive branch. I was ripshit the day that happened, as I felt it marked the official end to democracy and the beginning of dictatorship in the USA. That is another reason, the main one, to believe both incursions are unconstitutional.
There's nothing to doubt about it. It's definitely unconstitutional for the Congress to be handing this authority over to any other party at all, if I recall correctly from some articles, which said that the Constitution authorises only the Congress to be able to declare war. If that's right, then the Constitution evidently doesn't say that the Congress can alternatively, under x, y, z, ... circumstances, hand this authority over to the executive branch, which I believe is something the founders of the Constitution wanted to specifically protect the country from ever happening.
I'm not a constitutional expert, not by a long shot, but the above makes sense to me until someone explains that it's wrong and why it's wrong.
But I don't know that I'd agree that it's the main reason for both of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars being unconstitutional, for even if the Congress had declared war, this would have then been an unconstitutional decision; because the U.S. was attacking another government which never attacked or even threatened the U.S., and the war on Afghanistan, like the war on Iraq, was started based on LIES that were deliberately concocted by the Bush Jr-Cheney administration, which totally refused to abide by the Constitution's explicit statement that international laws, conventions and treaties the U.S. becomes co-signatory to become, automatically, [supreme law of the land] in and for the USA.
The Congress overwhelmingly provided an authorisation to or for recourse to war, but the Constitution and international laws prohibit warring on other governments EXCEPT when they've attacked the U.S. The Constitution provides no legality for pre-emptive wars and for wars by the USA based on LIES of the U.S. "leadership".
That authorisation could not legitimately be acted upon with the launching of war, for we did not have actual proof that Osama bin Ladin was guilty for or in the 9-11 attacks. We only had words from the Bush administration, but words, accusations without proof don't hold up in real courts of law that are based on real justice. OBL was not even part of the Afghan, aka Taliban, government, which even Bush Jr said had nothing to do with the 9-11 attacks, but which is the group the U.S. has really been warring against all along. Bush Jr later said that he didn't care about OBL, where he was, etcetera. As far as Bush was concerned, OBL could just be left a free man, which entirely fits with the fact that the U.S. still hasn't charged him for the 9-11 attacks.
OBL denied responsibility in the 9-11 attacks, Bush Jr said the Taliban had had nothing to do with the attacks, had played no role at all in these. But Bush Jr said the Taliban had to hand over OBL without providing any proof of his guilt or complicity and the Taliban responded with two offers during the weeks following 9-11 to hand over OBL, as long as adequate proof of his guilt was provided; and the Bush-Cheney admin. totally, though silently, rejected these offers.
It's as clear as day that that war alone was totally criminal from the start. If this fact had been justly acted upon by the Congress and U.S. DoJ right away, then we wouldn't have had the war on Iraq; we wouldn't have had either of these wars.
This and all of the times that the mostly Repub. and then mostly Dem. Congress(es) continuously kept authorising funding for these wars, including funding more than the Bush Jr admin. requested or demanded, illustrates that the Congress was rather equally guilty for or in these supreme international crimes.
They're all ROGUE, traitors, and domestic enemies; except for the members of the Congress, Senate, and White House administration who provided real opposition, as much as they could. The U.S. doesn't have real enemies, besides for these domestic ones.
Obama Happens
When the Emperor does it, it is not illegal.
you think that's bad just wait a few months or days. Those incoming troops are really there for the coming war against Iran.
The empire marches on...and on.
I hope America decides to go to war with Iran. It will mean massive bloodshed to American Forces and maybe Iran will throw a few bombs our way and kill some of our civilians here on American soil. Being basically, politically landlocked (Mexico doesn't offer any competition and Canada is too pacifist to stand up to America,) Americans are incredibly selfish and self-riteous. They only learn if there is something in it for them. They are censored from War, yet they support it.
Make no mistake, civilian deaths here on American soil would be a completely horrible thing. But, I think it may very well be necessary to stop American War.
I fear that a foreign nation will have to bomb the United States in order to stop this horrible continuous "War against any nation that doesn't agree with the US."
I know I shouldn't think that because I am a pacifist, but, I don't think there is any other way because Americans are so pampered and dumb.
Thoughts?
When are you enlisting with the Marines?
Starting the draft again would bring a quick halt to the war machine. So would charging a 1 or 2 dollar gas tax to actually pay the cost of the wars.
You are correct, but there are other ways to get the public's skin in the game.
- The "global war on terror" has been uncritically accepted by most in this country. -
The MIC invented this phrase to suit its purposes. Why does a Progressive also use it? It does not suit our purposes.
I suggest again and again that we use our terminology - this is the DAFT war. Its insanity must be brought to the attention of the 'Murican sheeple.
----
Future terrorism.
That is the nutshell of the problem. The MIC brings the story to the 'Murican sheeple that they need to fight those future terrorists.
What story do Progressive movements attempt to tell? The only word I hear being used is withdraw.
I suggest that we bring the story of the law that failed, the break in the system, and everybody comes together to fix it. Multi-partisan, uniting.
As I repeatedly post, untold thousands of Americans are being paid to find future terrorists so that the MIC has an excuse to get the country all riled up. And look, someone found al-Qaeda in Yemen.
I still wonder why we haven't found future terrorists in Borneo. After all, the Sultan of Brunei next door controls lots of oil, is a Muslim Monarch and nobody likes him.
Yes, if you were living in a democracy, but of course we all know that is a cruel joke.
I'm not Professor Cohn.
But, I think that is illegal. Your tax money is funding criminal activity all the time. From war to the DEA to corrupt politicians.
You would only be able to do that and not get imprisoned only if you fled to another country that doesn't offer extradition to the United States.
But, even then, that doesn't guarantee anything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objection_to_military_taxation
It appears that, like the British empire before us, the US is determined to send its military to the ends of the earth. The Brits thought they were bringing "civilization" to the poor barbarians, and the Americans think they're spreading "democracy." But it's really all just imperialism, and its roots are economic: energy sources and open (but not necessarily "free") markets. That governments are able to perpetuate this sham over and over again is a testament to the inherent ignorance and stupidity of the average citizen, and to the brain-washing success of educational systems and the media. The greatest imperialisms and mass slaughters throughout history have been by Christians, but we'll hear plenty about how Muslim terrorists have no respect for civilian life, and how they are distorting Islam to justify war and murder. But that's just the pot calling the kettle black. At the height of British imperialism, only a mass movement was able to bring down the system--not a president, not a Congress, and not a judiciary. And it wasn't done by voting one group of imperialists out and another in. Unless and until average citizens begin to make trouble for the government and disrupt the system, nothing will change.
Thank you Marjorie Cohn for unwrapping that web of lies and putting it across so clearly.
Well, we've known or suspected many international and domestic illegalities for years now. With the USDOJ and the UN emasculated or never fully empowered, there is currently no resort for civilian populations (other than revolution which tends to have unpredictable outcomes).
One answer I heard back when I belonged to a religion is for the nations of the world to act as one and stop a rogue aggressor nation, by whatever means necessary. Similarly, if an aroused American populace were joined in their (non-violent, presumably) rebellion against our dangerous runaway MIC government, perhaps change would be possible.
As it is, nothing will change until the last American dollar is squeezed from the citizenry and spent on the destruction of the world, and even then the only 'change' would be moving the wargames headquarters elsewhere.
Justice would be nice.
It is hard for me, an inveterate anti Iraq-war person, to aver that President Obama cannot be faulted either under International or under US laws for fully executing the Iraq SOFA agreement between the two nations. Remember that Iraq SOFA was already in place when Mr. Obama became our President. I explain the case under International law below in an answer to Odoco. As far as our constitution is concerned, the Campbell v. Clinton ruling of 1990 has established that a war becomes "legal" when congress votes funding for that war ergo President Obama cannot be accused of violating our constitution either. A constitutional crisis may occur only if the congress votes funds for continuing the Iraq war/occupation after 31 December 2011 and the Iraq SOFA has remained unchanged. President Obama would have to pull a political rabbit out of his political hat fast to ignore that deadline. Also chances that Iraq SOFA will be changed are below zero at least in Iraq.
There are numerous other arguments, including moral ones, for ending our military Iraq involvement much earlier than 31 December 2011 as required by Iraq SOFA but its legality is not among them.
What about assassinations? Referring to assassination by armed drones (and other means), the author wrote that "Willful killing is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions, punishable as a war crime under the U.S. War Crimes Act."
Carrying out illegal acts in a constitutional legal war is nothing new. Remember Abu Ghraib?
The author's point was that Obama has broken the law. In your response to the article, you argued that Obama's continuation of the wars are not illegal. Whether or not that's true, it addresses only part of the author's argument, and ignores the use of assassination as state policy. Now, you don't deny that this policy is illegal; you merely dismiss it by saying that it's nothing new. Of course it's not new; neither is murder, rape, theft, or any other crime. Lack of novelty is not an excuse for criminal behavior.
The issue I address is which international and domestic laws Obama has broken. My view is that it is difficult if not impossible to prove that Obama has violated our constitution by continuing Bush's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan when Congress has ordered him to do just that by funding both wars. You would be wrong to assume that I have a problem bringing Obama to court for war crimes under international and domestic laws. I do not have such a problem. I hope that this clarifies my positions.
Okay, thanks for the clarification.
What about international treaties, aren't they the law of the land.
I am embarrassed.
I am ashamed.
I am disappointed.
I am furious.
I am outraged.
I voted for Barack Obama.
I gave $100 to Barack Obama.
Barack Obama turns out to be:
A man with two faces.
A phony.
A liar.
A man without ethics.
A man without a heart.
A killer.
A war criminal.
To name a few ....
I hereby award to Barack Obama
the Ignoble Prize.
ig·no·ble (ig-no'-bl) adj. 1. Not noble
in quality, character, or purpose; base or mean.
rodinman. Did you expect that some other kind of man would be acceptable to the parasites in D.C.?
Regardless of the significant articles penned here at Common Dreams, whether it is by Ms. Cohn, Mr. Hedges or Mr. Greenwald etc. Nothing, I repeat NOTHING! is going to "change." The United States will continue on it's destructive hegemonic path, ignoring the will of the people. It is their tax dollars, the fuel that keeps this criminal and abhorrent engine purring.
Until there are "tens of millions" out and about in the streets of this country demanding "real change" and an end to these illegal and godforsaken oil wars of agression, America and it's infrastructure will continue to "wither on the vine" as the war pigs prosper with glee.
Professor Cohn: "Bin Laden did not claim responsibility for the [9/11] attacks until 2004".
This is the so-called October surprise video. There are many reasons to doubt the authenticity of this video, even if one puts to one side the overwhelming probability that bin Laden died in December 2001.
First, it contains the implausible claim that bin Laden had been planning the attacks since 1982.
Secondly, bin Laden defies aging and ill health to appear younger and physcally robust.
Thirdly, the speech is almost wholly secular in nature unlike all of his authenticated broadcasts.
Fourthly, it was not enough to convince the FBI who still fail to list him as "most wanted" for 9/11 because, as they said, they have "no hard evidence" linking bin laden to 9/11.
Fifthly, the speech was clearly aimed at assisting Bush's re-election which is difficult to reconcile with bin Laden's known views on Bush.
All of these points and much more can b found in David Griffin's booklet "Osama bin Laden: Dead or Alive (2009).
the UN is a freaking Joke and the USA should throw them out on their collective useless hind-ends and convert the building to low income housing and a giant free clinic for the poor.
The UN did not give a hoot about Afghanistan before 9/11. They did nothing to lift the country up and let it go down a road to hell that no one who has not been there can begin to imagine.
Edit
Sorry about 'hind-end' and 'hoot'
I really want to use much stronger words
I despise the UN and anything they stick their hands in is doomed
yeah. You are killing Afghanis because you care.
Jumping to conclusions again are you GWNorth?