# Sovereignty Issue: Did the US Have Legal Right to Enter Afghanistan?



## Nika2013 (Feb 20, 2013)

Under international law the sovereignty of a country is an essential right of statehood.  The doctrine of proportionality and right of self-defense extend only to countries that have been personally attacked by another country.  Proportionality means that the defending country may only offer the same degree of force presented against it and self-defense is to be restricted to regaining balance and stability and may not go further.  The defending country must STOP once the immediate threat has ceased. Since America was not attacked by the people of Afghanistan, but by Saudi Arabian terrorists, how is a presence in the country legal?  In addition, the US State Department was negotiating with the Taliban for a pipeline through the country prior to 9/11 and within the prohibition against giving aid or support to the same.  When Geo. W. Bush started bringing prisoners to Guantanamo, he said that the Taliban were not the leaders of Afghanistan and therefore not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions....If, this were true, then the Taliban as non-official leaders of the country, could not have been and cannot be viable targets for warfare. Our government cannot have it both ways.  At the time of the beginning of the war, only three countries recognized the Taliban as sovereign leaders and these were Arab countries.  The UN did not recognize them.  So....what is the legal justification for being in the country, especially when the people did not invite the United States?  This can have application to Iraq, too.


----------



## Mr. H. (Feb 21, 2013)

Wasn't the foray into Afghanistan a U.N. action?
Comprised of forces from many nations?


----------



## Nika2013 (Feb 21, 2013)

A so-called coalition of forces which were hand-picked by the US to support its decisions....The US dominated the debate....and can anyone really stand up to the US?  I doubt if there was a vote of the entire body of the UN (which is what I am talking about in covenants and resolutions)  I am simply looking at international law as it applies to the situation.


----------



## Mr. H. (Feb 21, 2013)

Ok. I'm probably no help there. Just thought I'd contribute something by way of bumping your thread. Being new and all...


----------



## Nika2013 (Feb 21, 2013)

I thought that was your intent...as you were kind and many are not.


----------



## Sunni Man (Feb 21, 2013)

It was insane invading an entire country just to try to find 1 man........


----------



## Nika2013 (Feb 21, 2013)

Yes...especially when Le Figaro French press and the BBC reported that Larry Mitchell, a CIA operative visited OBL in July at the American Hospital in Dubai, two months before 9/11. They knew his location...and he was on the US Most Wanted list then....I will try to post links...

12160.info/xn/detail/2649739%3ABlogPost%3A972103
[Le Figaro (Paris), 10/31/2001; Agence France-Presse, 11/1/2001; London Times, 11/1/2001
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=larry_mitchell 
www.youtube.com/watch?v=teVv8AZ7vTs                                                           The You Tube is the best as it is directly from French TV
prisonplanet.com/bin_laden_met_cia_agent_before_terror_attacks.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20011119054852/http://www.smh.com.au/news/0110/31/world/world105.html 
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RIC111B.html     This is the original article I believe


----------



## Billo_Really (Feb 21, 2013)

Nika2013 said:


> Under international law the sovereignty of a country is an essential right of statehood.  The doctrine of proportionality and right of self-defense extend only to countries that have been personally attacked by another country.  Proportionality means that the defending country may only offer the same degree of force presented against it and self-defense is to be restricted to regaining balance and stability and may not go further.  The defending country must STOP once the immediate threat has ceased. Since America was not attacked by the people of Afghanistan, but by Saudi Arabian terrorists, how is a presence in the country legal?  In addition, the US State Department was negotiating with the Taliban for a pipeline through the country prior to 9/11 and within the prohibition against giving aid or support to the same.  When Geo. W. Bush started bringing prisoners to Guantanamo, he said that the Taliban were not the leaders of Afghanistan and therefore not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions....If, this were true, then the Taliban as non-official leaders of the country, could not have been and cannot be viable targets for warfare. Our government cannot have it both ways.  At the time of the beginning of the war, only three countries recognized the Taliban as sovereign leaders and these were Arab countries.  The UN did not recognize them.  So....what is the legal justification for being in the country, especially when the people did not invite the United States?  This can have application to Iraq, too.


5 weeks before we attacked, in the last meeting US government officials had with the Taliban regarding the building of a pipleline across the country, after it became clear they [the Taliban] were not going to give us the okay to build, a US official stood up and told Taliban officials...

*"If you do not accept our offer of a carpet of gold, 
then we will bury you under a carpet of bombs!"​*


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 21, 2013)

> Sovereignty Issue: Did the US Have Legal Right to Enter Afghanistan?



No: 



> The U.S. war in Afghanistan was not authorized by the UN Security Council in 2001 or at anytime since, so this war began as an illegal war and remains an illegal war today. Our government&#8217;s claim to the contrary is false.
> 
> This war has been illegal, moreover, not only under international law, but also under U.S. law. The UN Charter is a treaty, which was ratified by the United States, and, according to Article VI of the US Constitution, any treaty ratified by the United States is part of the &#8220;supreme law of the land.&#8221; The war in Afghanistan, therefore, has from the beginning been in violation of US as well as international law. It could not be more illegal.
> 
> Did 9/11 Justify the War in Afghanistan? | Foreign Policy Journal


----------



## Nika2013 (Feb 21, 2013)

Marjorie Cohn, a well-known professor of international law, wrote in November 2001:

[T]he bombings of Afghanistan by the United States and the United Kingdom are illegal.[2]

Excellent...and her theory is basically the same as my own, but no one ever asks the question...

Thank you....


----------



## Nika2013 (Feb 21, 2013)

Here is the text of the London Times article on Osama in Dubai Hospital just before 9/11:

Times of London

Edition 5L THU 01 NOV 2001, Page 5

Ailing bin Laden &#8216;treated secretly for kidney disease'

ADAM SAGE IN PARIS; OVERSEAS NEWS

KIDNEY stones rather than Stealth bombers could deal a mortal blow to Osama bin Laden it appeared yesterday after reports that the al-Qaeda leader recently smuggled himself into an expensive Gulf hospital. Needing urgent treatment for his ailing kidneys, bin Laden, 44, is said to have checked into the American Hospital in Dubai in July. Among those with him, it is thought, was Dr Ayman Zawahiri, who as well as being his personal physician is al-Qaeda's second-in-command.

The report in Le Figaro and on Radio France International said that bin Laden had stayed in hospital for ten days. There have been persistent rumours about the frailty of bin Laden's health. In recent videos he is generally not seen moving about. When he does take a few steps it is with the aid of a cane. Aides blame a back injury. Intelligence sources believe that bin Laden bought a dialysis machine earlier this year which he had shipped to Kandahar. His problem now will be operating such equipment and the risk of infection if, as seems likely, he is hiding out in Afghan mountains.

Last year the magazine Asiaweek said bin Laden was dying of a kidney disease. In desperation he is said to have turned to the United Arab Emirates, one of the three governments that recognised the Taleban regime. Bin Laden is known to have influential supporters in the Emirates and to have kept substantial funds in bank accounts there. He is believed to have flown out of Dubai on the morning of the September 11 hijackings.

According to Western diplomatic sources the UAE was the nearest safe destination for bin Laden to get the high quality, modern and urgent treatment he needed. Quoting an unnamed manager at the American Hospital, Le Figaro said that bin Laden arrived in Dubai on July 4 accompanied by four bodyguards, an Algerian male nurse and Dr Zawahiri, who stayed at his side at all times. They had flown to Dubai from Quetta in Pakistan. The newspaper said that bin Laden was treated in the urology department, run by Terry Callaway, a Canadian-trained doctor, and left on July 14. Dr Callaway is a specialist in kidney stones and male infertility.

During his stay, Le Figaro said, bin Laden was visited by a CIA agent. One source said that the US agent was "recognised taking the main lift in the hospital to go to Osama bin Laden's room". The agent was recalled to the US on July 15, the day after bin Laden left hospital, the newspaper said. The CIA last night flatly denied the report. Its spokeswoman, Anya Guelsher, said that it was "complete nonsense".

A diplomatic source said earlier: "There are lots of rumours flying around Dubai. At first sight, it seems highly unlikely that a member of the CIA would go and knock on bin Laden's hospital bedroom door." Bernard Koval, the director of the 100-bed hospital that opened in 1995, also denied that bin Laden had been a patient there. Dr Callaway was unavailable for comment.

Intelligence sources in France also questioned yesterday what US agents did with information that Paris passed to America about bin Laden's terrorist ambitions just a few days before September 11. One of his lieutenants, Djamel Beghal, a French-Algerian, who had been arrested in Dubai on his way back from Afghanistan to Europe, allegedly told police that he had been told by al-Qaeda to plan a terrorist attack on the US Embassy in Paris. Le Figaro said that on September 7 the French intelligence service met embassy officials in Paris to pass on the information.

© 2001 London Times


FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of criminal justice, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research.


----------



## Nika2013 (Feb 26, 2013)

Here are the sources and explanation for the analysis of my original post:

 These three mandates have not been recognized in the war against Afghanistan:

     1. The war in Afghanistan has lasted more than ten years and this is not proportionate.

     2. The United States did not limit its defense to the immediate threat after 9/11.

     3. Most importantly, the people of Afghanistan did not attack the United States and in fact the attackers were Saudi nationals.

     The Taliban were not the sovereign leaders of Afghanistan and were recognized, as such, by only three countries.  The UN did not recognize them as leaders.

     An attack against one country by individual actors, or a group of non-state actors does not give a nation the right to attack another country that is not the aggressor.  An example of the incongruity of action would be the following:  Timothy McVeigh, in his mind-set decides that Great Britain is assisting the United States in illegal actions and then attacks Great Britain.  Britain then attacks the United States for an action of one of its citizens.  This response does not make sense under international law, or political, or military theory.

     Homeland security demands that the United States follow national and international law so that the accusation does not arise that America is acting above the law.  My intent is to apply international law to the actions of our government in order to protect our people.  The words on these pages are not "opinion"  but the application of legal principles in an academic study of the issues.

References:
UN Charter Art.2.4 "All members shall refrain from use of threat of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
Post-Charter Declaration on Force 1970: " Use of force constitutes a violation of international law and shall never be a means of settling inter-state issues."
Article 219 of the UN Charter  : Countermeasures by an injured state may only be taken against the state responsible for the wrongful act in order to induce the state to comply with its obligations under UN Charter.
Invoking Chapter 7 of the UN Charter led the United States down a false legal path to war.

18 U.S.C prohibits the holding of prisoners by the US without an act of congress.


----------



## RoccoR (Feb 27, 2013)

Nika2013.  _et al,_

The Question:  Did the US Have Legal Right to Enter Afghanistan?

Your argument is based on the concept of inviolable strict compliance _(strictus simi juris)_, a condition which leaves no alternative solution.  The relationship between the conditions set by the events of 911, the distant source of the actual threat, and the inability to make customary law a viable solution, requires the implementation of a alternative paradigm. 

Your argument is similar to the presentation as noted in:  Concept note on responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity (http://www.un.org/ga/president/63/interactive/protect/conceptnote.pdf) by the Office of the President of the General Assembly.



Nika2013 said:


> Here are the sources and explanation for the analysis of my original post:
> 
> These three mandates have not been recognized in the war against Afghanistan:
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

In the case of Afghanistan and US Law, as an obstruction, was made mute by the Joint Resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces (AUMF) against those responsible for the attacks on 911.  This is pursuant under Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) under the United States Code; 50 USC 1541.



			
				 Sept. 18 said:
			
		

> (a) IN GENERAL.&#8212;That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
> 
> *SOURCE: * http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/pdf/PLAW-107publ40.pdf



*(STIPULATIONS)*

I acknowledge the fact citations as annotated in:



> Chapter I said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*(COMMENT)*

ISAF (INTERNATIONAL SECURITY ASSISTANCE FORCE) in Afghanistan was created by the UN Security Council.  The most recent extension is annotated and approved in UN SC/10408 12 OCT 2011.   These various approvals state in part:



			
				APPROVING EXTENSION OF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY ASSISTANCE FORCE IN AFGHANISTAN said:
			
		

> Unanimously adopting resolution 2011 (2011) under Chapter VII of the Charter, the Council called on Member States to continue to contribute personnel, equipment and other resources to ISAF, which is led by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), while at the same time strengthening the effectiveness, professionalism and accountability of the Afghan National Army and Police, to which the transition of responsibility for security had started to be transferred in July 2011.
> *SOURCE:* Approving Extension of International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, Security Council Welcomes Agreement to Transfer Security Lead to Afghan Forces



*(ANSWER)*

Action was approved IAW the Charter and all supplemental guidance.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## High_Gravity (Feb 27, 2013)

Yes. Next question.


----------



## Nika2013 (Feb 27, 2013)

I love the thoroughness of your response, but I still agree with the international law attorney cited above...
My information came from William Sloman, International Law Attorney and Law Professor ( in my college text book in 2005)

 Responding to your analysis:

" Afghanistan and US Law, as an obstruction, was made mute by the Joint Resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces (AUMF) against those responsible for the attacks on 911. This is pursuant under Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) under the United States Code; 50 USC 1541. (You state)

Response: "Afghanistan law and US Law, as obstructions were made mute by the AUMF" (???)  This congress and its successor were notorious for passing law that did not comply with the US Constitution.  When challenged at the US Supreme Court level, the laws fail.  In addition, US law does not nullify the sovereignty of Afghanistan or its law and the AUMF cannot do this.

Response 2: " until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security."  This is the operable part of the statement and peace and security are the goal, not war.

Response 3:  I am not familiar with the SOFA (and will read it) but I am certain that an aggressor within a country may not claim sovereign immunity for its acts when it is violating the sovereignty of another nation.

Response 4:"There is no Art. 219 of the UN Charter."  
The information was taken directly from my international law book from school...I will go back to check..(Referenced in 2005 paper - citations)

Response 5: Adopting a resolution which does not comply with the original intent of the Charter does not make the resolution legal, especially when the US influenced the council with false information concerning who was responsible for 9/11,( Saudi nationals, not the people of Afghanistan)

Your analysis...though well referenced relies upon post-9/11 law that does not comply with either international law or US law which have existed over time.  The US cannot change law to fit its wars.  This is what John Yoo tried to do for the Bush administration in creating new legal analysis for new law that did not comply with the constitution...

Thank you for your response.  I enjoyed it.

I am under a lot of stress, today, so my posts may be vague...(family issues)


----------



## Nika2013 (Feb 27, 2013)




----------



## Nika2013 (Feb 27, 2013)

It is my opinion that an agreement, such as the SOFA in place in Afghanistan would be a forced agreement after the fact of a breach of sovereignty and it works something like this:

Entry into country as breach>choosing of a new president/leader (Hamid Karzai, a representative of UNOCAL oil, planning a pipeline through the country>a show of force> forced agreement (SOFA) > forced agreement illegal under UN Charter...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 27, 2013)

Nika2013 said:


> Under international law the sovereignty of a country is an essential right of statehood.  The doctrine of proportionality and right of self-defense extend only to countries that have been personally attacked by another country.  Proportionality means that the defending country may only offer the same degree of force presented against it and self-defense is to be restricted to regaining balance and stability and may not go further.  The defending country must STOP once the immediate threat has ceased. Since America was not attacked by the people of Afghanistan, but by Saudi Arabian terrorists, how is a presence in the country legal?  In addition, the US State Department was negotiating with the Taliban for a pipeline through the country prior to 9/11 and within the prohibition against giving aid or support to the same.  When Geo. W. Bush started bringing prisoners to Guantanamo, he said that the Taliban were not the leaders of Afghanistan and therefore not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions....If, this were true, then the Taliban as non-official leaders of the country, could not have been and cannot be viable targets for warfare. Our government cannot have it both ways.  At the time of the beginning of the war, only three countries recognized the Taliban as sovereign leaders and these were Arab countries.  The UN did not recognize them.  So....what is the legal justification for being in the country, especially when the people did not invite the United States?  This can have application to Iraq, too.



Nika, you are entitled to the fact not "myfacts" that you are rambling with above.  Yes, the Bush administration had every right under international law to attack terrorists hiding in a country in cahoots with the national government of said country.

Stop the "myfacts" nonsense.


----------



## Nika2013 (Feb 27, 2013)

This is what comes up when I type in 219 at the UN web page:

http://www.un.org/ar/sc/repertoire/69-71/69-71_12.pdf 

A consideration of the articles referring to sovereignty.....

My citation may be incomplete but it does bring up the same issues in the search component..


----------



## Nika2013 (Feb 27, 2013)

And you are entitled to a non-informed opinion....Doubt if you read the original post, at all....

The issue is would an attack on England by Timothy McVeigh be a legal reason for England to attack America?  Had to paint a picture for you...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 27, 2013)

Nika2013 said:


> And you are entitled to a non-informed opinion....Doubt if you read the original post, at all....
> 
> The issue is would an attack on England by Timothy McVeigh be a legal reason for England to attack America?  Had to paint a picture for you...



Derivative analogies fall apart eventually because of the lack of similarity.  Yours falls apart immediately.


----------



## Nika2013 (Feb 27, 2013)

Lawyers Against the War (LAW) | Iraq Veterans Against the War
About Us 

LAW is affiliated with:
o	Lawyers Against the War in the United Kingdom,
o	Lawyers for Peace in the Netherlands and
o	the Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research (TFF), based in Sweden.
LAW members reside in: Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Kenya, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Sweden, Syria, the United Kingdom and the United States.
LAW calls for:
&#8226;	an immediate end to the bombing and other illegal use of force in Iraq and Afghanistan.
&#8226;	the United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly and the Secretary General of the United Nations to discharge their legal duties and institutional responsibilities to maintain international peace and security and to ensure that member states&#8217; reactions to threats to international security, whether such threats are perceived or demonstrated, conform in all respects with international law and principles of justice.
&#8226;	national government and responsible organs of the United Nations to ensure that all actions taken internationally by states in response to inter-state crimes and disputes including the prevention, investigation, prosecution and punishment of crimes adhere to international law.
&#8226;	national governments and the responsible organs of the United Nations to ensure
o	the rights of combatants and non-combatants,
o	fair trials for offenders suspected of or charged with inter-state crimes,
o	no impunity for human rights offenders.
LAW is a volunteer is a volunteer organization. There is no membership fee. Legal Articles
(*)Denotes Actions/Articles by LAW or LAW Members 


Warren Richey: Secret 9/11 Case before High Court

Thomas Catán: Iraq business deals may be invalid, law experts warn

Phyllis Bennis: Back to the UN...

Marjorie Cohn: Bush and company fear prosecution in the ICC
INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE WAR AGAINST AFGHANISTAN 
"We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war&#8230;"
A rational examination of international law makes clear that the bombing of Afghanistan not only lacks legal justification, but also expressly violates a number of international laws, including the UN Charter and several international treaties on terrorism. The simple fact is that Canada is engaged in illegal military strikes against Afghanistan, and in the process has violated a number of principles embodied in international law, including, tragically, the right to life of Afghan civilians -- a right promised to all people when the UN was established in 1945. 
The legal foundation of the UN is embodied in the UN Charter, and expressly outlines for Member States, among them Canada, the US, UK and Afghanistan, obligations regarding the use of force (Article 2), the right to self-defence (Article 51), and the obligation of regional agencies such as NATO to act in accordance with the Charter (Article 52). 
Article 2 of the Charter prohibits the use or threatened use of force against another state. The Article 2 prohibition applies to all force and is a rule of customary international law, and, as such, is universally binding even on the few states not members of the United Nations. This Article specifically prohibits "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state." Evidence of the coalition&#8217;s willful violation of this mandate is abundantly clear in Tony Blair&#8217;s much-publicized October 2nd speech: "I say to the Taliban: surrender the terrorists; or surrender power. That is your choice." While such a statement might get a warm reception from the three countries bombing Afghanistan, the demand has no legal basis.            Gail Davidson Article











Lawyers Against the War (LAW) | Iraq Veterans Against the War
About Us 

LAW is affiliated with:
o	Lawyers Against the War in the United Kingdom,
o	Lawyers for Peace in the Netherlands and
o	the Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research (TFF), based in Sweden.
LAW members reside in: Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Kenya, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Sweden, Syria, the United Kingdom and the United States.
LAW calls for:
&#8226;	an immediate end to the bombing and other illegal use of force in Iraq and Afghanistan.
&#8226;	the United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly and the Secretary General of the United Nations to discharge their legal duties and institutional responsibilities to maintain international peace and security and to ensure that member states&#8217; reactions to threats to international security, whether such threats are perceived or demonstrated, conform in all respects with international law and principles of justice.
&#8226;	national government and responsible organs of the United Nations to ensure that all actions taken internationally by states in response to inter-state crimes and disputes including the prevention, investigation, prosecution and punishment of crimes adhere to international law.
&#8226;	national governments and the responsible organs of the United Nations to ensure
o	the rights of combatants and non-combatants,
o	fair trials for offenders suspected of or charged with inter-state crimes,
o	no impunity for human rights offenders.
LAW is a volunteer is a volunteer organization. There is no membership fee. Legal Articles
(*)Denotes Actions/Articles by LAW or LAW Members 


Warren Richey: Secret 9/11 Case before High Court

Thomas Catán: Iraq business deals may be invalid, law experts warn

Phyllis Bennis: Back to the UN...

Marjorie Cohn: Bush and company fear prosecution in the ICC
INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE WAR AGAINST AFGHANISTAN 
"We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war&#8230;"
A rational examination of international law makes clear that the bombing of Afghanistan not only lacks legal justification, but also expressly violates a number of international laws, including the UN Charter and several international treaties on terrorism. The simple fact is that Canada is engaged in illegal military strikes against Afghanistan, and in the process has violated a number of principles embodied in international law, including, tragically, the right to life of Afghan civilians -- a right promised to all people when the UN was established in 1945. 
The legal foundation of the UN is embodied in the UN Charter, and expressly outlines for Member States, among them Canada, the US, UK and Afghanistan, obligations regarding the use of force (Article 2), the right to self-defence (Article 51), and the obligation of regional agencies such as NATO to act in accordance with the Charter (Article 52). 
Article 2 of the Charter prohibits the use or threatened use of force against another state. The Article 2 prohibition applies to all force and is a rule of customary international law, and, as such, is universally binding even on the few states not members of the United Nations. This Article specifically prohibits "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state." Evidence of the coalition&#8217;s willful violation of this mandate is abundantly clear in Tony Blair&#8217;s much-publicized October 2nd speech: "I say to the Taliban: surrender the terrorists; or surrender power. That is your choice." While such a statement might get a warm reception from the three countries bombing Afghanistan, the demand has no legal basis.            Gail Davidson Article      Just keeps posting


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes (Feb 27, 2013)

Points above need to be embedded into public consciousness at every opportunity. 

Someone once expressed a thought something like "When the leaders that destroy America come onto the scene they will be wrapped in the flag and spouting gospel."

That sentiment echoes Krushchev's statement to the effect that when America falls it will fall from corruption within. 

The United States is still a long ways from falling, but public education is now teaching obedience rather than doubt and conformity rather than independent thought. We are in fact a nation at risk, and nothing makes that more clear than mindless support for bad acts by US leadership regardless of major party. 

One wishes bad acts were limited to illegal invasions of sovereign nations. Obama has perpetuated every illegal act of his predecessors. 

My questions are: Where do decent people turn? Is there a third way?


----------



## Nika2013 (Feb 27, 2013)

Fundamental Perspectives on International Law (Belmont, CA:Thomson, 5th ed. 2006)

William Slomanson (not Sloman, although Sloman is an int'l attorney too )

This is where my citations came from for the paper...He is a professor of international law in 
San Diego, Ca


----------



## Nika2013 (Feb 27, 2013)

"One wishes bad acts were limited to illegal invasions of sovereign nations. Obama has perpetuated every illegal act of his predecessors.

My questions are: Where do decent people turn? Is there a third way?" (he asks)

Thank you for the excellent post and I believe that there is a third way and it is to refuse to support either/both parties in the deeds that they do...and to have the courage to tell the truth as one perceives it rather than to accept the official line of either party.  Then, perhaps, one day...like the Rule of the Hundredth Monkey, the tipping point will happen and the country will realize that the Emperor has no clothes.

For those who have not heard the rule cited above:  In the recent past, monkeys in one region began washing their food before eating it ..and then monkeys in regions far away from the original monkeys started washing theirs...Eventually, without even having had any contact, the entire group started washing their food.  The idea is that once the 100th monkey washed his food, all monkeys did (the tipping point)
__________________


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 27, 2013)

Once again, Nika, your "myfacts" perspective does not coincide with the actual facts.


----------



## Nika2013 (Feb 27, 2013)

Oh, Jake...you are just so loveable...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 27, 2013)

Nika, you are doing the progressive liberal thing without thinking matters through.  That's OK.  Stay here, you will learn and grow.


----------



## Dante (Feb 27, 2013)

*Sovereignty Issue: Did the US Have Legal Right to Enter Afghanistan?

Answer: Yes*



Nika2013 said:


> Under international law the sovereignty of a country is an essential right of statehood...So....what is the legal justification for being in the country, especially when the people did not invite the United States?



Use a search engine. It's incredible what you can learn


----------



## Nika2013 (Feb 27, 2013)

I would rather listen to the experts in international law, but thank you...I have never heard of Google...


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Feb 27, 2013)

Nika2013 said:


> Sovereignty Issue: Did the US Have Legal Right to Enter Afghanistan?



Yes.

Next stupid question


----------



## Nika2013 (Feb 27, 2013)

" That's OK. Stay here, you will learn and grow."

OMG...I hope not...

You are so loveable, Jake...(reiteration)


----------



## RoccoR (Feb 27, 2013)

Nika2013,  _et al,_

There are all kinds of opinions out there, from some very great minds.  The fact of the matter is, that International Law is created, not by some mysterious body, or etched in stone by the finger of some deity, but by the United Nations and the General Assembly.  



Nika2013 said:


> Lawyers Against the War (LAW) | Iraq Veterans Against the War
> About Us
> 
> LAW is affiliated with:


*(COMMENT)*

The basic question was, "did the US Have Legal Right to Enter Afghanistan?"   The very body created the international laws, concepts and principles not only says "yes," but goes on to approve and send follow-on forces.  That is pretty definitive.  

There are all kinds of people that are against the war on various principles.  Sovereignty is always an issue.  But sovereignty was never intended to be use as an impregnable shield to harbor international terrorist or other assorted crooks and criminals.  Sovereignty is about many things, but when the US is subject to an attack by terrorists, and in hot pursuit, the perpetrators run to ground in Afghanistan, and the Afghan Government (Taliban) aid and abet the perpetrators by granting them safe harbor, shelter, and sustainment --- the Afghan Government has gone beyond the realm protecting their integrity as a sovereign nation and has stepped into the arena of participation ---> at a minimum -- an accessory-after-the-fact.  Unfortunately, they have to pay for that decision.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Nika2013 (Feb 27, 2013)

Whatever, Dude....Some substance, please...a few real facts?  A debate is not: "You're so stupid"...
My four-year-old debated that way....My ten-year-old knew how to hold a debate...  Addressed to: Don't Taz Me Bro


----------



## Dante (Feb 27, 2013)

The legal basis for the invasion of Afghanistan: Under provisions of Article 51 of the UN Charter.

On October 7, 2001, the USA and the UK reported to the UN Security Council that they had commenced the use of military force in self-defense.

The military campaign in Afghanistan was not specifically mandated by the UN, but was widely (though not universally) perceived to be a legitimate form of self-defense under the UN Charter. The ISAF force, of which British forces in Afghanistan form a part, is fully mandated by the UN.

End of story



Foreign Policy Journal is an online project that specializes in critiquing US foreign policy, with emphasis on the Middle East; aiming to provide an alternative to the Establishment medi


----------



## Nika2013 (Feb 27, 2013)

I respect your opinion, but one might ask: "If your theory of sovereignty as being flexible and changing over time is true...then does sovereignty mean anything, at all?  I ask, "Could the US enter France under the same pretext?" ....and I repeat the question that I gave to Jake...If Tim McVeigh created a terrorist attack against Britain, would Britain have the legal right, theoretically to attack the entire United States?"  It just does not make sense to attack an entire nation for the acts of people who were not even from Afghanistan (Saudi nationals)   I appreciate your responses and you speak like a true attorney... Addressing this to the person presenting UN theories..RoccoR.


----------



## Nika2013 (Feb 27, 2013)

What happened to the UN mandate to cease self-defense once the immediate threat is over?

Responses appreciated     Addressed to Dante


----------



## Dante (Feb 27, 2013)

Not being anti-war, I don't see an issue. Elections were held. The current government has not went to the UN and demanded the West leave. Does the UN recognize the sovereignty rights of the current Afghan government? Or are anti-war people imposing themselves as the legitimate voice of Afghan sovereignty?


----------



## Dante (Feb 27, 2013)

*Summary*

The military campaign in Afghanistan was not specifically mandated by the UN - there was no specific Security Council Resolution authorising the invasion - but was widely (although not universally) perceived to be a legitimate form of self-defence under the UN Charter.

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the 'threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state'. The accepted exceptions to this are where a competent organ of the UN (almost always the Security Council) has authorised it, or where it is in self-defence under article 51 of the Charter.

As required in article 51, the US and the UK reported to the UN on the reasons for invoking the article to justify their military action. The Taliban Government of Afghanistan was considered an accomplice to the events of 9/11 and, therefore, a justifiable target for action. United Nations Security Council Resolutions had already been passed requiring the Taliban to stop giving sanctuary to al-Qaeda.

Humanitarian law requires any action to be proportionate. This means that the action must only be that which is necessary to repel any attack and prevent further attacks from happening, if there is a realistic chance of further attacks. It also requires civilian casualties to be minimised.

..

*Conclusion*
Despite the problems outlined above, the UN and many states seemed to accept that the
attacks on Afghanistan were legitimate self-defence. In a speech on 8 October 2001 , the
Secretary General of the UN, Kofi Annan, stopped short of endorsing the air strikes but nor
did he condemn them, acknowledging that states have a right to individual and collective
self-defence.

The ISAF operation has a full mandate in the form of Security Council Resolutions.


----------



## Nika2013 (Feb 27, 2013)

Under the current US theory of sovereignty, it would seem that sovereignty is a "whites only" concept (yes..I am white) By this I mean that sovereignty is not acknowledged by the US in countries where people are a darker shade of tan.  Think: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Africa  and even Pakistan where the US did not get permission to enter to find OBL.  It's a lot like the failure of the US to recognize Native American sovereignty, except when it was necessary to make a treaty.  That always baffles me, in that the US killed the people constantly, but felt it necessary to gain assent in the treaty process   Maybe it was because England, France, and Spain recognized their sovereign rights.


----------



## Dante (Feb 27, 2013)

nuts!


----------



## Nika2013 (Feb 27, 2013)

I don't think that anyone has asked the people...and what real choices do they have?


----------



## Nika2013 (Feb 27, 2013)

"The Taliban Government of Afghanistan was considered an accomplice to the events of 9/11 and, therefore, a justifiable target for action."

If this were true, why was the US State Department negotiating with the Taliban prior to 9/11?
It was all about the oil pipeline and the Taliban refusal to allow the pipeline to go through.  In fact, the Taliban gave the contract to an Argentine businessman..Read the post in the beginning of thread by another poster about "carpet-bombing" for refusal to contract for the pipeline.

The other issues that you have listed have been presented by RoccoR.

I do not think that we will change our minds, but that is why we have an adversarial court system


----------



## Nika2013 (Feb 27, 2013)

The government is represented by a representative of UNOCAL...Union Oil of California...Karzai


----------



## Dante (Feb 27, 2013)

too bad the OP acts like a fucking nutso. this could have been a truly good thread


----------



## Mr. H. (Feb 27, 2013)

Nika2013 said:


> The government is represented by a representative of UNOCAL...Union Oil of California...Karzai



This piques my interest. Do you have any information for which you could provide a link that I may follow and read?


----------



## Nika2013 (Feb 27, 2013)

"too bad the OP acts like a f.... nutso, this could have been a truly good thread" Dante

Calling names, again...Are you stating that it could have been a really good thread if all of the posts agreed with you?  Obviously, you thought it WAS a good thread as you spent a lot of your time here...tonight.. Are you calling all of the attorneys who agree with my point of view "nutso's" too?

Let me tell you how this essay worked out as a thesis paper in school:

My conservative instructor refused to allow me to write on the subject...He stated, "It makes me uncomfortable."  My response was that he was not allowed to choose my topic or deny a topic in an environment of academic freedom.  He and I had these same debates over and over, again (the same ones you and I discussed) and in the end, he gave a good grade on the paper.  So, the "nutso" convinced him that she knew what she was talking about...One cannot be more conservative than he.

I was planning to play conservative advocate and post all of the conservative legal theorist's POV on the subject, but since you had to revert to childish attacks...


----------



## Nika2013 (Feb 27, 2013)

Karzai worked for UNOCAL?
 archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/pen-l/2001m12.5/msg00068.html 

Le Monde
http://www.lemonde.fr/article/0,5987,3210-7019-254716,00.html

TRANSLATION OF FOURTH PARAGRAPH FROM THE TOP

Aussi à l'aise à discuter accroupi sur un tapis que dans un salon à 
Washington ou à Londres, Hamid Karzaï a une large connaissance du 
monde occidental. Après Kaboul et l'Inde où il a étudié le droit, il 
a parfait sa formation aux Etats-Unis où il fut un moment consultant 
de l'entreprise pétrolière américaine Unocal, quand celle-ci étudiait 
la construction d'un oléoduc en Afghanistan.

"...Hamid Karzai, who is as comfortable discussing sitting on a 
carpet as in a Washinton or London "salon", has a profound knowledge 
of the western world. After Kabul and India, where he has studied 
law, he completed his learnings [apprenticeship ?] in the USA, where 
he acted, for a while, as a consultant for the American oil company 
Unocal, at the time it was considering building a pipeline in 
Afghanistan..."


[R-G] Hamid Karzai - Consultant for UNOCAL? 







December 22, 2001: Karzai Assumes Power in Afghanistan

Hamid Karzai. [Source: United States Agency for International Development]Afghan Prime Minister Hamid Karzai and his transitional government assume power in Afghanistan. The press reported a few weeks before that Karzai had been a paid consultant for Unocal at one time (Karzai and Unocal both deny this), as well as the Deputy Foreign Minister for the Taliban. [Le Monde (Paris), 12/13/2001; CNN, 12/22/2001] 
Entity Tags: Unocal, Hamid Karzai, Taliban
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, War in Afghanistan



&#8226;  ^ a b "Hamid Karzai". globalsecurity. 2007. Retrieved 11 December 2007. "The claim appears to have originated in the 9 December 2001 issue of the French newspaper Le Monde. Some have suggested that Karzai was confused with U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad."
Hamid Karzai - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia questions the claim.
&#8226;  
Barry Lane: Yeah. Yeah, well that's probably one of the great urban legends. He never worked for us.
Jared Israel: He didn't work for somebody else who worked for you?
Barry Lane: No. No, not him. He was never a consultant, never an employee. We've exhaustively searched through all our records to try and find out where the hell that came from." 
&#8226;  ^ "Misinformation". USA.gov. United States Department of State. 2009. Retrieved 12 September 2009. "all the company's records made it clear that Mr. Karzai was "never a consultant, never an employee" of Unocal."
CRG -- Getting used to the idea of double standards: The underlying maxim is "we will punish the crimes of our enemies and reward the crimes of our friends" 4. Feb. 12, 1998 - Unocal Vice President John J. Maresca -- later to become a special ambassador to Afghanistan -- testifies before the House that until a single, unified, friendly government is in place in Afghanistan, the trans-Afghani pipeline needed to monetize the oil will not be built. [Source: Testimony before the House International Relations Committee: http://www.house.gov/international_relations/105th/ap/wsap212982.htm] page missing

"Oh Lucy! - You Gotta Lotta 'Splain' To Do"  (not one of my citation 

choices but may give good links
&#8226;	Hamid Karzai in the Wikipedia.
&#8226;	Hamid Karzai, Global Security, undated.
&#8226;	Patrick Martin, "Unocal Advisor Named Representative to Afghanistan," WSWS (CorpWatch.org), January 3, 2002.
&#8226;	Tom Turnipseed, "A Creeping Collapse in Credibility at the White House: From ENRON Entanglements to UNOCAL Bringing the Taliban to Texas and Controlling Afghanistan," CounterPunch, January 10, 2002.
&#8226;	Marc Erikson, "Mr Karzai goes to Washington," Asia Times, January 29, 2002.
&#8226;	Ann Scott Tyson, "Red carpet leads back to a nation in tatters," Christian Science Monitor, January 31, 2002.
&#8226;	Mark W. Herold, "Karzai & Associates' Trickle Down Reconstruction," Cursor, May 12, 2002.
&#8226;	
&#8226;	"Hamid Karzai: Shrewd statesman," BBC, June 14, 2002.
&#8226;	
&#8226;	"Karzai Gets Leaned On by the Dope-pranos," Hoffmania, May 22, 2005.

Resources and articlesUS Connection


"Karzai was brought into the US fold long ago. In the 1980s, as the Afghan mujahideen were fighting Soviet occupiers, the smart-dressing, Quetta, Pakistan-based 'Gucci guerrilla', as American correspondents referred to Karzai's likes at the time, helped organize 'logistical support' (facilitating US weapons shipments). But much of his time then and later was also spent in the US where several of his brothers and a sister ran, and still run, 'Helmand' (a province west of Kandahar) brand Afghan restaurants in Chicago, San Francisco, Boston and Baltimore," Marc Erikson reported in the January 29, 2002, Asia Times.


----------



## Nika2013 (Feb 28, 2013)

e  
Entity Tags: Ahmed Shah Massoud, Unocal, Taliban, Turkmenistan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Henry A. Kissinger
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline
May 1996: US Seeks Stability in Afghanistan for Unocal Pipeline

 Robin Raphel. [Source: Mark Wilson / Agence France-Presse]Robin Raphel, Deputy Secretary of State for South Asia, speaks to the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister about Afghanistan. She says that the US government &#8220;now hopes that peace in the region will facilitate US business interests,&#8221; such as the proposed Unocal gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan. [Coll, 2004, pp. 330] 
Entity Tags: Unocal, Robin Raphel, Russia
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline
August 13, 1996: Unocal, Delta Oil Plan Afghan Pipeline

Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline
October 7, 1996: Future Bush Envoy to Afghanistan Wants US to Help Taliban Unify Country, Build Pipeline

In a Washington Post op-ed, Zalmay Khalilzad calls on the US to deal with the Taliban in Afghanistan. &#8220;It is time for the United States to reengage.&#8230;The Taliban does not practice the anti-US style of fundamentalism practiced by Iran&#8212;it is closer to the Saudi model.&#8221; He calls on the US to help the Taliban &#8220;put Afghanistan on a path toward peace,&#8221; noting that continuing violence &#8220;has been a source of regional instability and an obstacle to building pipelines to bring Central Asian oil and gas to Pakistan and the world markets.&#8221; [Washington Post, 10/7/1996] However, by 2000, Khalilzad will sour on the Taliban. In a speech in March 2000, he will state, &#8220;Afghanistan was and is a possible corridor for the export of oil and gas from the Central Asian states down to Pakistan and to the world. A California company called Unocal was interested in exploring that option, but because of the war in Afghanistan, because of the instability that&#8217;s there, those options, or that option at least, has not materialized.&#8221; [Los Angeles World Affairs Council, 3/9/2000] 
Entity Tags: United States, Taliban, Unocal, Zalmay M. Khalilzad
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 TimelineDecember 4, 1997: Taliban Representatives Visit Unocal in Texas

 Taliban representatives in Texas, 1997. [Source: Lions Gate Films]Representatives of the Taliban are invited guests to the Texas headquarters of Unocal to negotiate their support for the pipeline. Future President George W. Bush is Governor of Texas at the time. The Taliban appear to agree to a $2 billion pipeline deal, but will do the deal only if the US officially recognizes the Taliban regime. The Taliban meet with US officials. According to the Daily Telegraph, &#8220;the US government, which in the past has branded the Taliban&#8217;s policies against women and children &#8216;despicable,&#8217; appears anxious to please the fundamentalists to clinch the lucrative pipeline contract.&#8221; A BBC regional correspondent says that &#8220;the proposal to build a pipeline across Afghanistan is part of an international scramble to profit from developing the rich energy resources of the Caspian Sea.&#8221; [BBC, 12/4/1997; Daily Telegraph, 12/14/1997] It has been claimed that the Taliban meet with Enron officials while in Texas (see 1996-September 11, 2001). Enron, headquartered in Texas, has an large financial interest in the pipeline at the time (see June 24, 1996). The Taliban also visit Thomas Gouttierre, an academic at the University of Nebraska, who is a consultant for Unocal and also has been paid by the CIA for his work in Afghanistan (see 1984-1994 and December 1997). Gouttierre takes them on a visit to Mt. Rushmore. [Dreyfuss, 2005, pp. 328-329] 
Entity Tags: Unocal, Thomas Gouttierre, Clinton administration, Enron Corporation, George W. Bush, Taliban
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline
July-August 1999: Taliban Leaders Visit US

About a dozen Afghan leaders visit the US. They are militia commanders, mostly Taliban, and some with ties to al-Qaeda. A few are opponents of the Taliban. Their exact names and titles remain classified. For five weeks, they visit numerous locales in the US, including Mt. Rushmore. All their expenses are paid by the US government and the University of Nebraska. Thomas Gouttierre, an academic heading an Afghanistan program at the University of Nebraska, hosts their visit. Gouttierre is working as a consultant to Unocal at the time, and some Taliban visits to the US are paid for by Unocal, such as a visit two years earlier (see December 4, 1997). However, it is unknown if Unocal plays a role in this particular trip. Gouttierre had previously been paid by the CIA to create Afghan textbooks promoting violence and jihad (see 1984-1994). It is unknown if any of these visitors meet with US officials during their trip. [Chicago Tribune, 10/21/2001] 
Entity Tags: Thomas Gouttierre, University of Nebraska, Taliban, Unocal
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline


----------



## waltky (Feb 28, 2013)

Uncle Ferd says dat's `cause...

... Afghanistan sent one o' dem secret Wikileaks cables...

... sayin' come help `em get rid o' dem al-Qaida's.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 28, 2013)

Nika2013 said:


> I respect your opinion, but one might ask: "If your theory of sovereignty as being flexible and changing over time is true...then does sovereignty mean anything, at all?  I ask, "Could the US enter France under the same pretext?" ....and I repeat the question that I gave to Jake...If Tim McVeigh created a terrorist attack against Britain, would Britain have the legal right, theoretically to attack the entire United States?"  It just does not make sense to attack an entire nation for the acts of people who were not even from Afghanistan (Saudi nationals)   I appreciate your responses and you speak like a true attorney... Addressing this to the person presenting UN theories..RoccoR.



The Timothy McVeigh "myfacts" derivative analogy is a fallacy.  Let's move on.


----------



## RoccoR (Feb 28, 2013)

Nika2013,  _et al,_

Nothing is static in terms of international relations; least of all the condition of sovereignty.



Nika2013 said:


> .... "If your theory of sovereignty as being flexible and changing over time is true...then does sovereignty mean anything, at all?


*(COMMENT)*

Sovereignty is a condition.  Sovereignty has dimension in both the physical world and the existential world (which at times is the more important).  While the right of self-determination is a firmly held principle, if an entity is not "recognized" by the body of nations as being an independent state, existentially - that sovereignty doesn't exist.  Mutual recognition is critically important if the state is to participate and benefit from the laws, concepts, and principles of diplomacy and international relations.

The integrity of territorial boundaries is a matter of geometry and mathematics, only occasionally a product of negotiation.



			
				 Page 5 said:
			
		

> We resolve to undertake the following measures to prevent and combat terrorism, in particular by denying terrorists access to the means to carry out their attacks, to their targets and to the desired impact of their attacks:
> 
> 1. To refrain from organizing, instigating, facilitating, participating in, financing, encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities and to take appropriate practical measures to ensure that our respective territories are not used for terrorist installations or training camps, or for the preparation or organization of terrorist acts intended to be committed against other States or their citizens;​*SOURCE:* ODS HOME PAGE



"Mutual" Recognitions implies that the body members, have a commonly held foundation on certain principles and concepts.  



Nika2013 said:


> "Could the US enter France under the same pretext?"


*(COMMENT)*

Yes, it could, given the same conditions existed.  But the relationship and mutual cooperative efforts between the US and France would have to deteriorate to the same point and conditions that existed between the US and Afghanistan immediately post-911.  We have a long ways to go to reach that threshold.

The current method of recovering fugitives, used by the US, is generally through extradition arrangements.  It is rare that extraterritorial jurisdiction is applied.  However, the US has been known to exercise that option in the past.  Panama and the case of Manuel Noriega comes to mind.



Nika2013 said:


> It just does not make sense to attack an entire nation for the acts of people who were not even from Afghanistan (Saudi nationals)


*(COMMENT)*

The entry by the US into Afghanistan did not represent the US going to war with the Afghan people.  There was already a civil war in progress _(Northern Alliance vs Taliban)_.  The US jumped in on the side of the Northern Alliance in the effort to further their advance against the Taliban Regime; an effort in order to apprehend fugitives at sites used for terrorist installations or training camps, and for the preparation or organization of terrorist acts intended to be committed against other UN Member States or their citizens.

Nationality "(Saudi nationals)" is not a true issue here; merely an added consideration.  The Taliban obstructed justice - by aiding and abetting a specific terrorist organization, in the aftermath of a specific attack.  The Taliban did not cooperate fully in the fight against terrorism, and allowed terrorist installations or training camps to be maintained on their sovereign territory for which they were responsible for maintenance of law and order.



Nika2013 said:


> you speak like a true attorney...


*(COMMENT)*

I assure you that I am not an attorney.  I just have some experience in the subject matter.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Mr. H. (Feb 28, 2013)

Well I've sobered up. 
Thanks for the Unocal info, but it's inconsequential. 
Carry on.


----------



## RoccoR (Feb 28, 2013)

Nika2013, _et al,_

Correlation is not causation!



Nika2013 said:


> http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hamid_Karzai
> Timeline from Source Watch
> Profile: Unocal
> Unocal was a participant or observer in the following events:
> 1991-1997: Oil Investment in Central Asia Follows Soviet Collapse


*(QUESTIONs)*

Was the Turkmenistan&#8211;Afghanistan&#8211;Pakistan&#8211;India (TAPI) Pipeline ever built?  Did the instability in Afghanistan cause a delay?

*TAPI Route (Proposed)*

Dauletabad/South Yolatan (Turkmenistan) ---> Herat-Kandahar (Afghanistan)
Herat-Kandahar (Afghanistan) ---> Quetta-Multan (Pakistan)
Quetta-Multan (Pakistan) ---> Fazilka (India)

What correlation do you make here and what purpose does it serve relative to the advancement of the TAPI Pipeline?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Nika2013 (Feb 28, 2013)

The dominant theory is that the instability of the Taliban removed the route for the pipeline.  An alternate and better route would have been through Iran from the Caspian Region, to the Gulf, but Iran, of course, would not allow it.  Many believe that it is why so much has been made about the need to attack Iran...The movie, Syriana, explains all of this...(yes, I know its just a movie, but the picture becomes clear)  It has also been said that the Taliban gave the pipeline contract to an Argentine businessman and I had his name and company at one time...Did the US invasion nullify his deal?  I have a citation, somewhere, (and I will find it.)..where Wendy Chamberlain at State says after 9/11..."Now the path is clear for the pipeline to proceed."

A similar problem existed in Iraq before the US invasion as Iraq had given lucrative oil deals to France and other countries...Did the invasion nullify the oil contracts?  Addressed to RoccoR


----------



## Nika2013 (Feb 28, 2013)

Correlation is not causation....you think? See the following, please:
(addressed to RoccoR)

Laili Helms' liaison work for the Taliban paid off for Big Oil. In December 1997, the Taliban visited UNOCAL's Houston refinery operations. Interestingly, the chief Taliban leader based in Kandahar, Mullah Mohammed Omar, now on America's international Most Wanted List, was firmly in the UNOCAL camp. His rival Taliban leader in Kabul, Mullah Mohammed Rabbani (not to be confused with the head of the Northern Alliance Burhanuddin Rabbani), favored Bridas, an Argentine oil company, for the pipeline project. But Mullah Omar knew UNOCAL had pumped large sums of money to the Taliban hierarchy in Kandahar and its expatriate Afghan supporters in the United States. Some of those supporters were also close to the Bush campaign and administration. And Kandahar was the city near which the CentGas pipeline was to pass, a lucrative deal for the otherwise desert outpost.

Lali Helms is the niece of former FBI field chief in San Francisco in the late 1980&#8217;s and early 1990&#8217;s and he may have been a CIA Director under Nixon or Reagan (I have to check) UNOCAL was also clearly concerned about its past ties to the Taliban. On September 14, just three days after terrorists of the Afghan-base al Qaeda movement crashed their planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon, UNOCAL issued the following statement: "The company is not supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan in any way whatsoever. Nor do we have any project or involvement in Afghanistan. Beginning in late 1997, Unocal was a member of a multinational consortium that was evaluating construction of a Central Asia Gas pipeline between Turkmenistan and Pakistan [via western Afghanistan]. Our company has had no further role in developing or funding that project or any other project that might involve the Taliban." 
Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs Christina Rocca, who is also a former CIA officer, visited Taliban diplomatic officials in Islamabad.    

 globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD201A.html  

 Quite to the contrary, recent meetings between U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Wendy Chamberlain and that country's oil minister Usman Aminuddin indicate the pipeline project is international Project Number One for the Bush administration Trans-Afghanistan pipeline controversy
Wikipedia Bridas Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

Enter the competitor:
Bridas began expanding into the Central Asian energy sector in 1987, and secured its first large-scale contract (gas exploration rights in Turkmenistan), in 1992.[5] Between 1995 and 1997, CEO Carlos Bulgheroni was personally involved in negotiations between Bridas and the governments of Pakistan and Turkmenistan, as well as the ruling Taliban faction in Afghanistan, to build the Trans-Afghanistan Gas Pipeline.[6] These negotiations were in competition with those undertaken by Unocal,[7] and although an agreement with Unocal-led corporation CentGas was reached, the deal was forfeited in January 1998 in favor of one with Bridas.[8] Instability in Afghanistan delayed construction of the pipeline. 

1997, Bridas and Amoco (now BP) established a joint venture named Pan American Energy.[1] The stake of BP is 60% and the stake of Bridas is 40%. On November 28, 2010 it was announced that Bridas would acquire the BP's stake for $7.06 billion in cash.[2] In 2011 the deal was cancelled.[10] (not Afghanistan)
So Bridas and BP were/are partners at the time of the Bridas contract with the Taliban.  This means that BP and Britain had  a stake in being in Afghanistan for oil &#8230;..Wikipedia

References
1.	Wikipedia has all citations for the paragraph above&#8230;
2.	 ^ a b c Clarín (9/6/1997) (Spanish)
3.	^ a b "BP Sells 60% Stake in Pan American Energy to Bridas Corp. for $7.1 Billion". Bloomberg. 2010-11-28. Retrieved 2012-07-14.
4.	^ Gas & Oil: Argentina's Bridas eyes $ 5 bn oil asset sale[dead link]
5.	^ "Bridas Corporation - Description". OilVoice. Retrieved 2008-06-30.
6.	^ World Press Review: Timeline of Competition between Unocal and Bridas for the Afghanistan Pipeline (December 2001)
7.	^ Clarín (11/8/2005) (Spanish)
8.	^ BBC News: Taleban in Texas for talks on gas pipeline (12/4/1997)
9.	^ BBC News: Taleban says it's ready to sign Turkmen pipeline deal (1/4/1998)
10.	^ Environment News Service: Afghanistan's New Pipeline Deal May Be Just Another Pipe Dream (4/17/2006)
11.	^ Macalister, Terry (2011-11-06). "BP's $7bn sale of Pan American Energy to Argentinian firm collapses". The Guardian. Retrieved 2012-07-14.





CRG -- Getting used to the idea of double standards: The underlying maxim is "we will punish the crimes of our enemies and reward the crimes of our friends"
The exact data is in two of my books
I have citations fom news sources for all of these. I have to find my books

I respect your input


----------



## Dante (Feb 28, 2013)

Dante said:


> too bad the OP acts like a fucking nutso. this could have been a truly good thread



On this page (linked to) the OP revealed itself to be a whacko not looking for rational discussion. I'm surprised the thread continues. 

It belongs in the Rubber Room


----------



## Nika2013 (Feb 28, 2013)

Original Sources:
Brzezinski, Zbigniew  The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books 1997.  Creating a direction for the future of America in geo-politics.
Croissant, Michael P. and Aras, Bulent (ed.) Oil and Geopolitics in the Caspian Sea Region. Praeger, London.1999
Baryiski, Robert V. The Caspian Oil Regime: Military Dimensions. Caspian Crossroads Magazine. Vol. 1 Issue 2.  Spring 1995
Blank, Stephen J. The United States: Washington&#8217;s New Frontier in the Trans-Caspian in Croissant 1999
Cohn, Marjorie. The Deadly Pipeline War:US Afghan Policy Driven By Oil Interests. Jurist. University of Pittsburg. 7 December 2001. http://jurist.law.pitt.edu
Cited in Monbiot, George. &#8220;A Discreet Deal in the Pipeline.&#8221; The Guardian. 15 Feb. 2001

The why of why we are there....


----------



## Nika2013 (Feb 28, 2013)

Sorry, I cannot see the link....The poster, Dante does not have any information, therefore he reverts to childish attacks...therefore he will get the standard line for all people of his ilk who have nothing to say:  "Have a nice day!"  ...and yet, you are here...hmmm


----------



## Nika2013 (Feb 28, 2013)

It's inconsequential...to those who do not want to believe it...Read the original sources of why we are there... later in posts...These are academic sources...and I think I like you better drunk


----------



## RoccoR (Feb 28, 2013)

Nika2013,  _et al,_

This is interesting to say the least.  When I was in Iraq, I couldn't tell you how many times I heard that we were there for the oil.



Nika2013 said:


> A similar problem existed in Iraq before the US invasion as Iraq had given lucrative oil deals to France and other countries...Did the invasion nullify the oil contracts?  Addressed to RoccoR


*(QUESTION)*

Did  any US oil company _(or Brit company for that matter)_ receive a long term oil agreement in the bidding for oil service contracts in Iraq?

*(COMMENT)*

Unless the sidebar intent was to deliberately drive oil prices up, by making Iraqi oil more expensive, then it is not likely that oil had anything to do with the Iraq War as a motive.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Nika2013 (Feb 28, 2013)

The current method of recovering fugitives, used by the US, is generally through extradition arrangements. It is rare that extraterritorial jurisdiction is applied. However, the US has been known to exercise that option in the past. Panama and the case of Manuel Noriega comes to mind.

Nika: Always under a Republican administration, it seems. 

"Could the US enter France under the same pretext?"
(COMMENT)  RoccoR

Yes, it could, given the same conditions existed. But the relationship and mutual cooperative efforts between the US and France would have to deteriorate to the same point and conditions that existed between the US and Afghanistan immediately post-911. We have a long ways to go to reach that threshold.

Nika:  Could France enter the US to retrieve fugitives under the same pretext?  If not, why not? Could Canada?  To indict Bush for war crimes (as many international lawyers suggest?)

RoccoR:
 The entry by the US into Afghanistan did not represent the US going to war with the Afghan people. There was already a civil war in progress (Northern Alliance vs Taliban). The US jumped in on the side of the Northern Alliance in the effort to further their advance against the Taliban Regime; an effort in order to apprehend fugitives at sites used for terrorist installations or training camps, and for the preparation or organization of terrorist acts intended to be committed against other UN Member States or their citizens.

Nika:  That was not a stated reason for going to war: to assist the Northern Alliance.  The Northern Alliance were puppets paid by the US. 


RoccoR

 "(Saudi nationals)" is not a true issue here; merely an added consideration. The Taliban obstructed justice - by aiding and abetting a specific terrorist organization, in the aftermath of a specific attack. The Taliban did not cooperate fully in the fight against terrorism, and allowed terrorist installations or training camps to be maintained on their sovereign territory for which they were responsible for maintenance of law and order.

Nika:  So, if a country fails to extradite an alleged perpetrator, this is ground for attack and invasion?  Terrorism, or terrorist  are terms defined by the injured party.  The US Department of State and the US Department of Defense have different groups listed on terrorist lists.  My homeland security books state that one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter so who gets to decide?  Perhaps the Taliban did not want to get involved?  They were not the official leaders of Afghanistan according to Time Almanac 2006 which states that only 3 countries saw them, as such.


----------



## Nika2013 (Feb 28, 2013)

RoccoR could be a military judge, or advocate


----------



## rdean (Feb 28, 2013)

The US had the right to enter Afghanistan but not Iraq.  Try to figure out why.


----------



## Nika2013 (Feb 28, 2013)

I will post the link to the contracts....I knew you were military  To RoccoR


----------



## Nika2013 (Feb 28, 2013)

I assume it is the reason that RoccoR has discussed, that the Taliban refused to extradite OBL...(so the theory goes) but this could be a smokescreen for the pipeline we have been discussing.  As for Iraq, they did not have OBL, but they did have the oil.  Playing conservative advocate, one could say that Al Queda (spelled many ways) was in both countries. (at least after awhile)  Addressed to RDEAN


----------



## RoccoR (Feb 28, 2013)

Nika2013,  _et al,_

I'm not sure this changes the outcome.



Nika2013 said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > The current method of recovering fugitives, used by the US, is generally through extradition arrangements. It is rare that extraterritorial jurisdiction is applied. However, the US has been known to exercise that option in the past. Panama and the case of Manuel Noriega comes to mind.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

OK, if this is your research.  If this is true, what impact does if have on the legality of the action. 

*(QUESTION) *

What specific law or statue are you alleging is violated?

How does party affiliation impact your alleged violation?



			
				Nika2013 said:
			
		

> Nika2013 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Again, the previous answer applies; in reverse.  The relationship and mutual cooperative efforts between the France and the US would have to deteriorate to the same point and conditions that existed between the US and Afghanistan immediately post-911. And again --- we have a long ways to go to reach that threshold.



Nika2013 said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > The entry by the US into Afghanistan did not represent the US going to war with the Afghan people. There was already a civil war in progress (Northern Alliance vs Taliban). The US jumped in on the side of the Northern Alliance in the effort to further their advance against the Taliban Regime; an effort in order to apprehend fugitives at sites used for terrorist installations or training camps, and for the preparation or organization of terrorist acts intended to be committed against other UN Member States or their citizens.
> ...


*(COMMENT) *

I did not say that was the reason; it was the strategy, given the conditions on the ground.  The reason was spelled-out in the AUMF; "authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force."  The object was to move the Taliban Government aside and effect action against al-Qaeda, a known international terrorist organization.



Nika2013 said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > "(Saudi nationals)" is not a true issue here; merely an added consideration. The Taliban obstructed justice - by aiding and abetting a specific terrorist organization, in the aftermath of a specific attack. The Taliban did not cooperate fully in the fight against terrorism, and allowed terrorist installations or training camps to be maintained on their sovereign territory for which they were responsible for maintenance of law and order.
> ...


*(COMMENTs)*

I'll try to answer these one at a time.


  Q1:  So, if a country fails to extradite an alleged perpetrator, this is ground for attack and invasion?

(ANS)  If the President and Congress say so, then as Caesar use to say:  In the name of the People and the Senate - so it will be done.  (Or something to that effect.)

Honestly, it depends on what our leadership says and the seriousness of the situation.​

Q2:  The US Department of State and the US Department of Defense have different groups listed on terrorist lists.

(ANS)  So?

DOS (BUREAU OF COUNTERTERRORISM) maintains the Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs).  LINK ---> Country Reports on Terrorism 2011 Chapter 6. Foreign Terrorist Organizations  The list is IAW the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

DOD Maintains lists for operational and intelligence purposes.​

Q3:  My homeland security books state that one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter so who gets to decide?

(ANS)  The definition.  If a person or entity meets the criteria, then it is what it is.​

Q4:  Perhaps the Taliban did not want to get involved?

(ANS)  Perhaps!  That is not the stance they projected.​


Nika2013 said:


> I knew you were military   To RoccoR


*(COMMENT)*

Yes, it is no secret.  I'm retired Army, a former Counterintelligence Agent.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Nika2013 (Mar 1, 2013)

"
Yes, it is no secret. I'm retired Army, a former Counterintelligence Agent." RoccoR

Excellent...I have some questions and answers for you, tomorrow, but tonight I am so tired that I can't think....Can I send a personal message with some personal questions related to your job and some issues I have?....Also, my favorite uncle was a life-time officer in the military...and also a chaplain...You would never know it...But, he is constantly going to reunions


----------



## Nika2013 (Mar 1, 2013)

RoccoR:
&#8226;	Q1: So, if a country fails to extradite an alleged perpetrator, this is ground for attack and invasion?
(ANS) If the President and Congress say so, then as Caesar use to say: In the name of the People and the Senate - so it will be done. (Or something to that effect.)

Honestly, it depends on what our leadership says and the seriousness of the situation.

NIKA:  Respectfully, it appears that you are stating that the law, itself,( or precedent) does not matter as long as congress and president make a decision to do something.  I will use the example of  US v Korematsu where both congress and the president decided to intern the Japanese.  History has shown us that this was an illegal act by both.  Another example might be when Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus and closed the courts.  The most recent would be the nullification of the Military Tribunal Act which stated that all GB prisoners shall be tried in military courts, as well as the 2012 Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act which received an injunction to prohibit application to Americans.  As I stated earlier, congress is notorious for passing illegal laws since 9/11 and the federal courts usually nullify them.

If, as you say, the law is whatever congress says it is, then how can other countries ever know what to expect in their relations with the US?  Since treaties and US law are the supreme law of the land, the US may not violate a treaty without expressly stating that it is abrogating the treaty. 


RoccoR

DOD Maintains lists for operational and intelligence purposes.

NIKA:  The plethora of terrorist lists confused both the authors of our homeland security text book and the instructor.  The authors stated that a strategic plan cannot be developed until a real definition of terrorism is the same across all executive agencies. 

I am still doing the research on Iraq oil contracts&#8230;


----------



## Nika2013 (Mar 1, 2013)

I forgot to address this:

RoccoR
	Q3: My homeland security books state that one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter so who gets to decide?  (from NIKA)
(ANS) The definition. If a person or entity meets the criteria, then it is what it is.

NIKA:  Under this definition, the American Revolutionaries would meet the criteria.  Were they terrorists, or freedom fighters?  They were freedom fighters to the colonists, but terrorists to Britain?  Isnt that the way all freedom fighters begin?  Actually, my books state that groups are only terrorists until they achieve political power and recognition by the UN.  Then, they become legitimate actors on the world stage.  Maybe Nelson Mandelas group would be an example.  This is why so-called terrorist groups seek recognition and use shock to create visibility for their groups.

Gangs are now being called urban terrorists and I find it interesting that Mayor Daly of Chicago was once a notorious gang member.


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 1, 2013)

Nika2013,  _et al,_

Terrorism and the law have been around a long time.



Nika2013 said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*(REFERENCE)*



			
				Para 4(a) and (b) said:
			
		

> 4.    Urges all States to fulfil their *obligations under international law* and take effective and resolute measures for the speedy and final elimination of international terrorism and to that end, in particular:
> 
> 
> (a)   To prevent the preparation and organization in their respective territories, for commission within or outside their territories, of terrorist and subversive acts directed against other States and their citizens;
> ...



*(COMMENT)*

All I can say is that Afghanistan was in violation of the law, supra, and they were called on it.

*(QUESTIONS)*

I need clarification:


What specific law (national or international) are you claiming that the US violated?


Responding in hot pursuit of the perpetrators. (Article 51 of the UN Charter).
Perpetrators found in Afghanistan.  (Tora Bora)
The Taliban Government, have _de facto_ control over the al-Qaeda Camps declined to comply with international law. (Resolution A/RES/46/51)
The US enforced.

What specifically is the objection?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Nika2013 (Mar 1, 2013)

One article on oil:


NO WAR FOR OIL?

Western oil firms remain as US exits Iraq - Features - Al Jazeera English 
  Baghdad, Iraq - While the US military has formally ended its occupation of Iraq, some of the largest western oil companies, ExxonMobil, BP and Shell, remain.
On November 27, 38 months after Royal Dutch Shell announced its pursuit of a massive gas deal in southern Iraq, the oil giant had its contract signed for a $17bn flared gas deal.
Three days later, the US-based energy firm Emerson submitted a bid for a contract to operate at Iraq's giant Zubair oil field, which reportedly holds some eight million barrels of oil.
Earlier this year, Emerson was awarded a contract to provide crude oil metering systems and other technology for a new oil terminal in Basra, currently under construction in the Persian Gulf, and the company is installing control systems in the power stations in Hilla and Kerbala.
Iraq's supergiant Rumaila oil field is already being developed by BP, and the other supergiant reserve, Majnoon oil field, is being developed by Royal Dutch Shell. Both fields are in southern Iraq.
According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), Iraq's oil reserves of 112 billion barrels ranks second in the world, only behind Saudi Arabia. The EIA also estimates that up to 90 per cent of the country remains unexplored, due to decades of US-led wars and economic sanctions.
"Prior to the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, US and other western oil companies were all but completely shut out of Iraq's oil market," oil industry analyst Antonia Juhasz told Al Jazeera. "But thanks to the invasion and occupation, the companies are now back inside Iraq and producing oil there for the first time since being forced out of the country in 1973.


----------



## Nika2013 (Mar 1, 2013)

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HF17Ak01.html 
Knight's moves in the Gulf
It is in this context that the current struggle over Iran must be viewed. Iran occupies a pivotal position on the tripolar chessboard. Geographically, it is the only nation that abuts both the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea, positioning Tehran to play a significant role in the two areas of greatest energy concern to the United States, Russia and China. Iran also abuts the strategic Strait of Hormuz - the narrow waterway from the Gulf to the Indian Ocean through which about one-quarter of the world's oil moves every day. As a result, if Washington ever lifted its trade embargo on Iran, its territory could be used as the most obvious transit route for the delivery of oil and natural gas from the Caspian countries to global markets, especially in Europe and Japan. 


After the Iraq Oil Ministry refused to deal with many US companies, the companies went to the Kurdistan Province to get contracts:

"We are working to cancel (France&#8217;s) Total's stake in the Halfaya contract. We will disqualify and terminate the contract of any company signing a deal with the Kurdistan region without the approval of the oil ministry," Abdul-Mahdy al-Ameedi, director of the ministry's contracts directorate, told reporters.
Total declined to comment on the Iraqi statement.

The French company followed U.S. rivals Exxon and Chevron into Kurdistan, which analysts say has huge potential reserves and offers more attractive contract terms than the Iraqi central government's deals.



Checkmate? or correlation is not causation?


----------



## Nika2013 (Mar 1, 2013)

I am going to provide a summary and timeline for my theory tonight, but first I want to state that I have always considered myself a patriot and I love this country, especially when it is at its best...What I do not like are the sleazy behind the scenes acts which threaten humanity and the way that Americans have been treated as fools.  I consider myself a person who is carrying on the philosophy of my ancestors who fought in the  American Revolution for the constitution and the Bill of Rights.  From France to England to Wales, to America, my ancestors were at the apex of European and American history...I write this for those who consider my words to be anti-American.  We should not remain oblivious within the shadow of a shadow government.  And for those who keep calling me, Dude...I am a woman


----------



## Nika2013 (Mar 1, 2013)

The very best book I have found on the war in Afghanistan and pre/post 9/11 is by a political scientist, Nafeese Ahmed, The War on Freedom.  He has the original citations and asks questions, such as :  Was the attack on America to open the door for a more aggressive foreign policy and restrictions on liberty at home?  "What happened to our defense measures?" Who blocked the investigations?  "When was the Afghan offensive first conceived?"  He gives a lot of info and background....It makes Ghost Wars by Steve Coll seem like elementary school analysis.


----------



## Nika2013 (Mar 1, 2013)

Again..that the sovereignty of the Afghan people was breached.  The Taliban either were or were not the sovereign leaders.  George Bush stated that they were not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions as they were not the sovereign leaders of the country (as GB prisoners)  Answering RoccoR

To me, it is obvious that there was a race for oil in Iraq and Afghanistan as both countries had just cut deals with other entities for oil or a pipeline.  Enter the US and these deals were nullified.  The issue that has not been addressed is that BP was part of the Bridas deal in Afghanistan and received a lucrative contract In Iraq....My brother worked for BP for years and my cousin was assistant to the ambassador in Afghanistan.  Neither have given information to me, though.  Maybe I should ask...  At least I think that was his position....It was in Belize and in Africa...Maybe he is an intelligence agent, too..


----------

