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

[JakeStarkey]

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]

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:
• an immediate end to the bombing and other illegal use of force in Iraq and Afghanistan.
• 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’ reactions to threats to international security, whether such threats are perceived or demonstrated, conform in all respects with international law and principles of justice.
• 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.
• 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…"
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’s willful violation of this mandate is abundantly clear in Tony Blair’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:
• an immediate end to the bombing and other illegal use of force in Iraq and Afghanistan.
• 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’ reactions to threats to international security, whether such threats are perceived or demonstrated, conform in all respects with international law and principles of justice.
• 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.
• 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…"
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’s willful violation of this mandate is abundantly clear in Tony Blair’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]

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]

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]

"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]

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

 

[Nika2013]

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

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

Answer: Yes

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]

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

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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

Yes.

Next stupid question

 

[Nika2013]

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

OMG...I hope not...

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

 

[RoccoR]

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.

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]

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

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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]

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]

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

Responses appreciated Addressed to Dante

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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]

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.