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

[Procrustes Stretched]

nuts!

 

[Nika2013]

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

 

[Nika2013]

"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]

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

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

 

[Mr. H.]

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]

"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]

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



• ^ 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.
•
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."
• ^ "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
• Hamid Karzai in the Wikipedia.
• Hamid Karzai, Global Security, undated.
• Patrick Martin, "Unocal Advisor Named Representative to Afghanistan," WSWS (CorpWatch.org), January 3, 2002.
• 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.
• Marc Erikson, "Mr Karzai goes to Washington," Asia Times, January 29, 2002.
• Ann Scott Tyson, "Red carpet leads back to a nation in tatters," Christian Science Monitor, January 31, 2002.
• Mark W. Herold, "Karzai & Associates' Trickle Down Reconstruction," Cursor, May 12, 2002.
•
• "Hamid Karzai: Shrewd statesman," BBC, June 14, 2002.
•
• "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]

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 “now hopes that peace in the region will facilitate US business interests,” 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. “It is time for the United States to reengage.…The Taliban does not practice the anti-US style of fundamentalism practiced by Iran—it is closer to the Saudi model.” He calls on the US to help the Taliban “put Afghanistan on a path toward peace,” noting that continuing violence “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.” [Washington Post, 10/7/1996] However, by 2000, Khalilzad will sour on the Taliban. In a speech in March 2000, he will state, “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’s there, those options, or that option at least, has not materialized.” [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, “the US government, which in the past has branded the Taliban’s policies against women and children ‘despicable,’ appears anxious to please the fundamentalists to clinch the lucrative pipeline contract.” A BBC regional correspondent says that “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.” [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]

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]

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]

Nika2013, et al,

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

.... "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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.]

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

 

[RoccoR]

Nika2013, et al,

Correlation is not causation!

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–Afghanistan–Pakistan–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]

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]

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’s and early 1990’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 …..Wikipedia

References
1. Wikipedia has all citations for the paragraph above…
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

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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]

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’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. “A Discreet Deal in the Pipeline.” The Guardian. 15 Feb. 2001

The why of why we are there....

 

[Nika2013]

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]

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