Invading the sovergn nation of Afganistan was a war crime. It was not the only option the US
had available. It didn't turn out to be the best option she could haven chosen. When I make such assertions, I am not claiming to be correct. I expect to be disproven if anyone can.

I would hardly call that a war crime considering the provocation from the people that government was harboring. Before 9/11 Al Qaeda had already committed the most despicable kinds of terrorist acts, yet in Afghanistan they were bosom buddies of the Taliban government. We had to take action after the crime that was committed.

Now I cannot prove that we took the best option without knowing what other options you think may have been available. What else could we have done?

The issue is whether the International Court would call it a war crime--not whether you or I would.

What International Court? And if it is not of matter of yours or my opinion, then what would that court's opinion likely to be and how do we know that?

Remember too that we are not the only ones in Afghanistan.

Anyway, what would be a better option than what we did and why? I am not getting into mistakes that we have made in the course of the campaign, I am simply discussing the question of our involvement there in the first place. I think that here we had a compelling case for military intervention.

We were the first ones there...though...and without a UN mandate --- I guess a case could be made we were acting without authority...

Just who would judge us? I am not being arrogant here, I am asking a real question. Who would judge us, on what basis, and how likely would it be that they would convict us of perpetrating a war crime?

This position requires us to admit that we are guided by the principle that Might makes Right. That's
where we are now. Thats the reason we need and want change.

What position? The position that I am curious as to who would judge us?

And if "we" (I love how freely that word is used) need and want change, then why would "we" need such change? If we have a court to judge, and presumably enforce international law, then what's to change? But if we need change in that area then would that mean we lack such a court? And then don't we have to get into difficult questions like just how do we get from here to there in the real world?

That is the question that I am interested in when thinking about the world my children will live in. I am not so much interested in what "we" need and want, because my kids cannot do anything with that.

This court:

http://www.un.org/News/facts/iccfact.htm

I dont now...is there still a world court...in Geneva...

If we're guilty of war crimes, maybe rla is suggetsing a court like that a Nurnberg be used...

Sorry can't be that one...

Early on in his tenure Bush refuse to submit to its jurisdiction...

I guess we know why...

That court's mandate is to try individuals, not states. And if you read that helpful little list of facts it appears that our intervention into Afghanistan, however wrong one may say it was and is, would not be covered, although theoritically there is a slight possibility that the actions of some individuals involved in that intervention could be covered.

There is the World Court (as I believe it is commonly called). Seems to me that the first Ortega government went there to charge the U.S. with unlawfully intervening in Nicaragua, and that nothing came of it.

But aren't we in danger of leaving the real world and entering cloud cuckoo land here?

If the UK can be dragged in that court, there is no reason the US shouldn't be.




UK should face court for crimes in Iraq, say jurists

* Ewen MacAskill, diplomatic editor
* The Guardian,
* Wednesday January 21 2004
* Article history

A panel of international lawyers and academics called on the International Criminal Court yesterday to investigate Britain for alleged war crimes in Iraq.

The eight-member panel, mainly British but including representatives from France, Canada and Ireland, cited the use by the British military of cluster bombs in civilian areas.

It also said Britain was complicit in the actions of the US military, including the killing of international journalists.

A copy of the findings was sent to the ICC, which is based in the Hague, and to the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith.

The panel, which includes Bill Bowring, professor of human rights and international law at London Metropolitan University, took evidence in London in November.

Although its final report has not been completed, the panel yesterday issued an executive summary.

In it the panel said it answered yes to the question "Is there sufficient cause and evidence for the International Criminal Court prosecutor to investigate members of the UK government for breaches of the ICC statute in relation to crimes against humanity and/or war crimes committed during the Iraq conflict and occupation 2003?"

Professor Bowring said the RAF had dropped cluster bombs around Baghdad and the British army had fired artillery shells with cluster munitions around Basra.

He said these bombs were not accurate weapons capable of pinpoint accuracy and had exploded over large areas.

He noted the US attacks which resulted in the death of journalists: on the offices of the Arab satellite network, al-Jazeera, in Baghdad and on the Palestine hotel in Baghdad, where journalists were staying.

Prof Bowring said the panel had also investigated the use of depleted uranium, damage to the civilian infrastructure, including electricity supplies, the conduct of the US-British occupation and the preservation of the cultural heritage of Iraq, but the results had been inconclusive.

The ICC, which came into being in 2002, was set up as a permanent court to deal with crimes against humanity and war crimes.

Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the ICC's chief prosecutor, was prominent in the trial of former members of the Argentinian junta.

Although, on balance, it seems unlikely that the ICC will investigate the allegations against the British government, an ICC spokeswoman yesterday refused to rule it in or out.

"We do not usually comment on issues that might fall under the jurisdiction of the court," she said.

A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence defended the use of cluster bombs. "The thing about cluster munitions is they are not classified as unlawful and provide us with a legitimate capability," he said.

"We reserve the right to use them against military objectives and if we did not we might have to use alternative military equipment, such as an artillery barrage that might cause more [civilian] damage."

The international panel, in addition to Prof Bowring, is made up of: William Schabas, professor of human rights law at the National University of Ireland; Christine Chinkin, professor of international law at the London School of Economics; Reni Provost, associate professor at the faculty of law of McGill University in Canada; Paul Tavernier, professor, University of Paris Sud; Nick Grief, professor of law, University of Bournemouth; Guy Goodwin-Gill, QC, senior research fellow, All Souls College, Oxford; and Upendra Baxi, professor of international law, Warwick University.

The panel is supported by Peacerights, a relatively new human rights group.

Phil Shiner, its spokesman, said: "International law does not recognise victor's justice and both sides to the Iraq war must be fully accountable.

"Many respected groups and lawyers have expressed serious concerns about the apparently unnecessary and unjustified civilian casualties, particularly because of the use of cluster bombs in urban areas."

Too late!

The US did not have a compelling case for invading Afganistan and the practical results have a catastrophe, no less than invading Iraq. Therefore we do not have a case for continuing our aggressive position toward the Islamic World.

But it is not clear that this people on this panel know what they are talking about (or perhaps they don't care if what they are talking about is impossible). The statement by ICC spokersperson was very noncommital. Theoritically those involved in plausible war crimes (in this case described as unlawful actions against civilians, not the the invasion itself) could be charged. But your own previous fact list clearly states that the ICC's mandate is to charge individuals, not states.

This is a political view of yours, not an authoritative legal opinion. Now you can advocate your view, and try to persuade people that we were wrong to engage in military action in Afghanistan and are wrong to continue doing so. But you need to present your case, not simply claim that what we are doing is illegal.

There is a case to be made here----in a separate thread.

The concept of International Justice through International Courts of Jurisdiction exist at various states of readiness. There is a difference in disproving an argument and wrecking an argument. It
seems to me, arne, that you tend to over use the latter when responding to my post.

Part of my thinking here is skepticism about doctrines of counter-insurgency warfare.

In this instance I mean we people in the US supporting the Obama Campaign.

I agree.

I agree with that. I would contend that we are at a very early stage of readiness, as these courts only have some tangential importance. Now they have some importance, and that is encouraging. We could help by joining the ICC. But it will take time for the concept of international justice to advance to any significant degree, as you will need agreement by a lot of actors for that. We need to develop means of enforcing the decisions of these courts. And then there is the competing value of national sovreignty to deal with, something so jealously, if not fanatically, guarded by the governments and citizens of most countries of the world.



I am not sure what difference you have in mind, other than aggressiveness, perhaps. And I can come down like ton of bricks when I see what I consider a really lame argument, I admit. But so what? If I am wrong (and I am wrong frequently enough) then anyone defending that argument can simply show how I am wrong, and make my eager rush to judgment look silly. My attempt to "wreck" the argument will be shown to be unsuccessful. If I am right, well complaining that I wrecked the argument is a rather damp squib of a reply. If it was as bad an argument as I contended then why not wreck it?

Go ahead and start one. I will move the posts relevant to that subject to the new thread.

I am in the US and I support Obama, yet you are not speaking for me on this.

As the International plays softly in the background.

Counter-insurgency warfare may best be understood as systematically destroying Emergent
Leadership, indigenous to the population being controlled. We aren't just killing persons, we
are making structural changes in the social system.

What is emergent leadership?

Well even with that unintended boost to him I think that it can be shown that Rla is wrong, if very well-intentioned, on a lot of what he is saying on this.

Do you all want me to move the relevant posts from the other threads here?

You mean we're not in that land right now?

Personally I would say that it is not all that rare that we are there!

Yes.
Emergent Leadership is more advanced in the US than in Austrialia in that most people say a
minority group member could not yet emerge into a successful Presidential candidate there,
as has occured here. When a Situation calls for a leader, one emerges unless there are
active restraints. Bottoms-up democracy requires leaders to emerge in all communities
and aggregates of communities.

Fine. Can you give some specific examples of what emergent leadership we would be "suppressing" with counterinsurgency strategies?

BTW, I have some skepticism about "counter-insurgency" myself, at least the idea that it can always be successfully used to "pacify" a foreign population, as long as it is properly implemented. But sometimes, like invasive chemotherapy, it may be what is indicated. I think that you can find some examples of successul counter-insurgency campaigns. Right now the Colombians seem to be close to success with their own counter-insurgency program, although I don't think that they will completely eradicate the insurgency there without working out a deal with reasonable elements within the rebel groups and constructing a new order that serves the countryside where they have been operating, areas which have been traditionally very isolated from Bogota.

You are correct on that. I'm not speaking for you. I am speaking to you, inviting you to consider an idea.

Fine. It would seem then that you might want to consider using the word "we" with a caveat or two then.

And we (that is members of CGCS posting on this thread) might do well to focus on the actual issues involved here, and what positions seem to make sense, as opposed to what set of people support those positions.

A critical example on the world stage right now is Hammas. The different factions in Iraq
that are fighting each other and us have leaders that think they are protecting their Neighborhoods
and other critical social networks that are critical for them. The US Military has reversed tactics in some areas and or hiring emergent leaders but this is too little too late.

Okay. Would all of these groups necessarily be redeemable, or could some be so violent and evil as to be hopeless? I am not suggesting that Hamas could be described that way, but I would suggest that the Al Qaeda groups (at least those ones truly inculcating the Al Qaeda way of fanatically insane nihilism) could be. But I would agree that most of these groups are not so hopeless, and that there is at least the potential that they could be reasonably dealt with.

What is interesting is that your last sentence seems to imply that counter-insurgency methods could work, if applied properly. I certainly think that myself, but with the caveat that in many cases they are not likely to work or not likely to work without unacceptable costs.

Counterinsurgency warfare as military malpractice

Edward Luttwak argues that victory is possible in counterinsurgency warfare, but brutal persecution of the civilian population is a necessary and sufficient condition to achieve victory.

Here is a quote:




Click on the link to read the historical examples he uses. In the time of Jesus, the cross was one example.

Are you going to invite NATO to this world hanging? I keep forgetting why some Liberals are certifiable.

Not to mention the UN which stated it was legal and justified.

Anti-insurgency ware-fare is no more acceptable method of problem solving than any other method
of warfare. If the International problem is large enough and bad enough to require war to solve it, it
is too large and too bad to use war to solve it.

Proof that Al Qaeda did it ?
Proof that Al Qaeda exists as an organization instead of a free for all synonym of "despicable enemy" ?
Proof that Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan ?

Of course you can't, you're not George W Bush trying to meet George W Bush's goals.

How do you solve it?

Maybe the German Nazis didn't invade Poland. I mean it supposedly happened before I was born (and I'm not even that young) and I have never been to Poland.

Now I would agree that we have to be careful about assessing every group that calls itself "Al Qaeda". Some of these groups may be considerably different from what Osama Bin Laden has in mind. But it appears that at least most of them are exactly what he has in mind (there may be some counter-examples but I am not aware of them) even if they are not all under his direct and firm command.

The problem of insurgency (or terrorism) is not likely to be solved in the foreseeable future.

Occupying countries and engaging in counter-insurgency warfare seems to just make the problem more costly and protracted.

Perhaps US foreign policy would do better by recognizing that we are not sole owners of the problem.

Let me rephrase my question:

How do we deal with this problem?

I certainly agree that we are not the sole owners of this problem.

I think even if it could be established that counter-insurgency can at least be sometimes a useful and indicated tool to use, despite its limitations, that we need to focus on a lot of things other than counter-insurgency in dealing with terrorism.

It is also the case that our CIA and other similar organizations created most of the problem.