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

[Nika2013]

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.]

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

 

[Nika2013]

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.]

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

 

[Nika2013]

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

 

[Sunni Man]

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

 

[Nika2013]

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]

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]

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’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 “supreme law of the land.” 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]

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]

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 ‘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]

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]

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.

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.

(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.

(a) IN GENERAL.—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:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
SOURCE: Charter of the United Nations: Chapter I: Purposes and Principles

Every State has the duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Such a threat or use of force constitutes a violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations and shall never be employed as a means of settling international issues.
SOURCE: DECLARATION ON PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW FRIENDLY RELATIONS AND CO

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
SOURCE: Charter of the United Nations: Chapter VII: Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace and Acts of Agression

In the case of Afghanistan, the SOFA, in force since 2003, provides that U.S. Department of Defense military and civilian personnel are to be accorded status equivalent to that of U.S. Embassy administrative and technical staff under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961. Accordingly, U.S. personnel are immune from criminal prosecution by Afghan authorities and are immune from civil and administrative jurisdiction except with respect to acts performed outside the course of their duties. The Government of Afghanistan has further explicitly authorized the U.S. government to exercise criminal jurisdiction over U.S. personnel. Thus, under the existing SOFA, the United States would have jurisdiction over the prosecution of the servicemember who allegedly attacked the Afghan civilians.
SOURCE: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL34531.pdf

ADMIN NOTE: There is no "Article 219 of the UN Charter;" as referenced. However, the concept that technical, military, economic or other countermeasures application be properly applied as inferred is acknowledged and stipulated; as it conforms to General Assembly A/56/589 Fifty-sixth session Agenda item 162, 26 November 2001: http://www.un.org/documents/ga/docs/56/a56589.pdf

(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:

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]

Yes. Next question.

 

[Nika2013]

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]

 

[Nika2013]

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]

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]

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]

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...