Yes Or No?

Bush recently said that his biggest regret as president was not finding WMD in Iraq. Presumably, he has no regrets on needlessly killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, having untold thousands of Americans killed or wounded, and largely destroying the country. As you know, he lied us into the war.

If he is not a war criminal, how can anyone else be a war criminal?

What is the magic number of dead innocents and American servicemen that moves someone from the status of statesman to war criminal?

Has president Obama crossed the line yet?

Call it what you will, but I am not willing to go so far as to call the previous administration war criminals.

seem to think we are never justified in any war we have ever been involved in.

However, I disagree about Afghanistan.

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

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

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

Bush's justification for attacking Afghanistan was that it was harboring Osama bin Laden and training terrorists, even though bin Laden did not claim responsibility for the 9/11 attacks until 2004. After Bush demanded that the Taliban turn over bin Laden to the United States, the Taliban’s ambassador to Pakistan said his government wanted proof that bin Laden was involved in the 9/11 attacks before deciding whether to extradite him, according to the Washington Post. That proof was not forthcoming, the Taliban did not deliver bin Laden, and Bush began bombing Afghanistan.

Bush’s rationale for attacking Afghanistan was spurious. Iranians could have made the same argument to attack the United States after they overthrew the vicious Shah Reza Pahlavi in 1979 and the U.S. gave him safe haven. If the new Iranian government had demanded that the U.S. turn over the Shah and we refused, would it have been lawful for Iran to invade the United States? Of course not.

When he announced his troop “surge” in Afghanistan, Obama invoked the 9/11 attacks. By continuing and escalating Bush’s war in Afghanistan, Obama, too, is violating the UN Charter. In his speech accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, Obama declared that he has the "right" to wage wars "unilaterally.” The unilateral use of military force, however, is illegal unless undertaken in self-defense.

Those who conspired to hijack airplanes and kill thousands of people on 9/11 are guilty of crimes against humanity. They must be identified and brought to justice in accordance with the law. But retaliation by invading Afghanistan was not the answer. It has lead to growing U.S. and Afghan casualties, and has incurred even more hatred against the United States.

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

Bush’s rationale for attacking Afghanistan was spurious. Iranians could have made the same argument to attack the United States after they overthrew the vicious Shah Reza Pahlavi in 1979 and the U.S. gave him safe haven. If the new Iranian government had demanded that the U.S. turn over the Shah and we refused, would it have been lawful for Iran to invade the United States? Of course not.

Even an antiamerican ranter like you cant deny this.

Bushes rational for attacking Iraq was spurious but the the afganistan government was protecting the taliban who planed and financed the 9/11 attack.

Give Him an "F" in the War on Terror

How Bush Was Offered Bin Laden and Blew It

By ALEXANDER COCKBURN
and JEFFREY ST. CLAIR

George Bush, the man whose prime campaign plank has been his ability to wage war on terror, could have had Osama bin Laden's head handed to him on a platter on his very first day in office, and the offer held good until February 2 of 2002. This is the charge leveled by an Afghan American who had been retained by the US government as an intermediary between the Taliban and both the Clinton and Bush administrations.

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11012004.html

Diplomats Met With Taliban on Bin Laden
Some Contend U.S. Missed Its Chance

By David B.Ottaway and Joe Stephens
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, October 29, 2001; Page A01


Over three years and on as many continents, U.S. officials met in public and secret at least 20 times with Taliban representatives to discuss ways the regime could bring suspected terrorist Osama bin Laden to justice.

Talks continued until just days before the Sept. 11 attacks, and Taliban representatives repeatedly suggested they would hand over bin Laden if their conditions were met, sources close to the discussions said.

http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/US_met_taliban.htm

Taliban told US it would give up Osama: report

Reuters | June 6 2004

United States and Taliban officials met secretly in Frankfurt almost a year before the September 11 attacks to discuss terms for the Afghans to hand over Osama bin Laden, according to a German television documentary.

No agreement was reached and no further negotiations took place before the suicide hijackings in 2001, which bin Laden subsequently hailed in a videotape as the work of his Al Qaeda network.

ZDF television quoted Kabir Mohabbat, an Afghan-American businessman, as saying he tried to broker a deal between the Americans and the purist Islamic Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, who were sheltering bin Laden.

He quoted Taliban foreign minister Mullah Wakil Ahmed Mutawakil as saying: "You can have him whenever the Americans are ready. Name us a country and we will extradite him".

A German member of the European Parliament, Elmar Brok, confirmed that he had helped Mr Mohabbat in 1999 to establish initial contact with the Americans.

"I was told [by Mohabbat] that the Taliban had certain ideas about handing over bin Laden, not to the United States but to a third country or to the Court of Justice in The Hague," Mr Brok said.

"The message was: 'There is willingness to talk about handing over bin Laden', and the aim of the Taliban was clearly to win the recognition of the American Government and the lifting of the boycott," he said, referring to the international isolation of the Taliban.

Mr Brok said he was not in a position to judge how credible the offer was but he passed it to the US ambassador to Germany, John Kornblum.

He said Mr Mohabbat was then summoned to Washington to be interviewed by US officials.

This led in turn to the German meeting, which ZDF said took place between Taliban ministers and US officials in a Frankfurt hotel in November 2000.

The documentary, broadcast on Thursday evening, said the Afghans put forward "several offers" and there was talk of holding further negotiations at the US embassy in Pakistan on where and when bin Laden would be handed over.

In fact, no more talks took place before September 11.

But negotiations did resume five days after the attacks, in the Pakistani city of Quetta, ZDF said. This meeting has been previously reported in US media.

Mr Mohabbat said the Americans pressed in Quetta for the handover of bin Laden within 24 hours, but the Taliban were unable to meet that demand.

Within weeks, US-led forces intervened in Afghanistan to drive the Taliban from power and kill, capture or disperse Al Qaeda fighters based in Afghan training camps.

Bin Laden still has not been captured.

Mr Brok said he had not personally taken part in either of the reported meetings between the Taliban and the United States but believed there had been a "political decision" not to pursue negotiations after the one in Frankfurt.

He told ZDF: "I have to say that I consider this offer [on bin Laden's handover] very much more seriously with hindsight than I did at the time".

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2004/060604giveuposama.htm

but the the afganistan government was protecting the taliban who planed and financed the 9/11 attack.

Rape charges were dropped by Sweden today.

I don't think Assange will live long after leaving his current sanctuary. I think the US watches him daily and will execute him outright or take him into custody and never let him see the light of day.