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

[RoccoR]

Nika2013, et al,

This is interesting to say the least. When I was in Iraq, I couldn't tell you how many times I heard that we were there for the oil.

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

(QUESTION)

Did any US oil company (or Brit company for that matter) receive a long term oil agreement in the bidding for oil service contracts in Iraq?

(COMMENT)

Unless the sidebar intent was to deliberately drive oil prices up, by making Iraqi oil more expensive, then it is not likely that oil had anything to do with the Iraq War as a motive.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Nika2013]

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.

Nika: Always under a Republican administration, it seems.

"Could the US enter France under the same pretext?"
(COMMENT) RoccoR

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.

Nika: Could France enter the US to retrieve fugitives under the same pretext? If not, why not? Could Canada? To indict Bush for war crimes (as many international lawyers suggest?)

RoccoR:
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.

Nika: That was not a stated reason for going to war: to assist the Northern Alliance. The Northern Alliance were puppets paid by the US.


RoccoR

"(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.

Nika: So, if a country fails to extradite an alleged perpetrator, this is ground for attack and invasion? Terrorism, or terrorist are terms defined by the injured party. The US Department of State and the US Department of Defense have different groups listed on terrorist lists. My homeland security books state that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” so who gets to decide? Perhaps the Taliban did not want to get involved? They were not the “official” leaders of Afghanistan according to Time Almanac 2006 which states that only 3 countries saw them, as such.

 

[Nika2013]

RoccoR could be a military judge, or advocate

 

[rdean]

The US had the right to enter Afghanistan but not Iraq. Try to figure out why.

 

[Nika2013]

I will post the link to the contracts....I knew you were military To RoccoR

 

[Nika2013]

I assume it is the reason that RoccoR has discussed, that the Taliban refused to extradite OBL...(so the theory goes) but this could be a smokescreen for the pipeline we have been discussing. As for Iraq, they did not have OBL, but they did have the oil. Playing conservative advocate, one could say that Al Queda (spelled many ways) was in both countries. (at least after awhile) Addressed to RDEAN

 

[RoccoR]

Nika2013, et al,

I'm not sure this changes the outcome.

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.

Nika: Always under a Republican administration, it seems.

(COMMENT)

OK, if this is your research. If this is true, what impact does if have on the legality of the action.

(QUESTION)

What specific law or statue are you alleging is violated?

How does party affiliation impact your alleged violation?

"Could the US enter France under the same pretext?"

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.

Nika: Could France enter the US to retrieve fugitives under the same pretext? If not, why not? Could Canada? To indict Bush for war crimes (as many international lawyers suggest?)

(COMMENT)

Again, the previous answer applies; in reverse. The relationship and mutual cooperative efforts between the France and the US would have to deteriorate to the same point and conditions that existed between the US and Afghanistan immediately post-911. And again --- we have a long ways to go to reach that threshold.

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.

Nika: That was not a stated reason for going to war: to assist the Northern Alliance. The Northern Alliance were puppets paid by the US.

(COMMENT)

I did not say that was the reason; it was the strategy, given the conditions on the ground. The reason was spelled-out in the AUMF; "authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force." The object was to move the Taliban Government aside and effect action against al-Qaeda, a known international terrorist organization.

"(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.

Nika: So, if a country fails to extradite an alleged perpetrator, this is ground for attack and invasion? Terrorism, or terrorist are terms defined by the injured party. The US Department of State and the US Department of Defense have different groups listed on terrorist lists. My homeland security books state that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” so who gets to decide? Perhaps the Taliban did not want to get involved? They were not the “official” leaders of Afghanistan according to Time Almanac 2006 which states that only 3 countries saw them, as such.

(COMMENTs)

I'll try to answer these one at a time.

• Q1: So, if a country fails to extradite an alleged perpetrator, this is ground for attack and invasion?

(ANS) If the President and Congress say so, then as Caesar use to say: In the name of the People and the Senate - so it will be done. (Or something to that effect.)

Honestly, it depends on what our leadership says and the seriousness of the situation.​

• Q2: The US Department of State and the US Department of Defense have different groups listed on terrorist lists.

(ANS) So?

DOS (BUREAU OF COUNTERTERRORISM) maintains the Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs). LINK ---> Country Reports on Terrorism 2011 Chapter 6. Foreign Terrorist Organizations The list is IAW the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

DOD Maintains lists for operational and intelligence purposes.​

• Q3: My homeland security books state that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” so who gets to decide?

(ANS) The definition. If a person or entity meets the criteria, then it is what it is.​

• Q4: Perhaps the Taliban did not want to get involved?

(ANS) Perhaps! That is not the stance they projected.​

I knew you were military To RoccoR

(COMMENT)

Yes, it is no secret. I'm retired Army, a former Counterintelligence Agent.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Nika2013]

"
Yes, it is no secret. I'm retired Army, a former Counterintelligence Agent." RoccoR

Excellent...I have some questions and answers for you, tomorrow, but tonight I am so tired that I can't think....Can I send a personal message with some personal questions related to your job and some issues I have?....Also, my favorite uncle was a life-time officer in the military...and also a chaplain...You would never know it...But, he is constantly going to reunions

 

[Nika2013]

RoccoR:
• Q1: So, if a country fails to extradite an alleged perpetrator, this is ground for attack and invasion?
(ANS) If the President and Congress say so, then as Caesar use to say: In the name of the People and the Senate - so it will be done. (Or something to that effect.)

Honestly, it depends on what our leadership says and the seriousness of the situation.

NIKA: Respectfully, it appears that you are stating that the law, itself,( or precedent) does not matter as long as congress and president make a decision to do something. I will use the example of US v Korematsu where both congress and the president decided to intern the Japanese. History has shown us that this was an illegal act by both. Another example might be when Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus and closed the courts. The most recent would be the nullification of the Military Tribunal Act which stated that all GB prisoners shall be tried in military courts, as well as the 2012 Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act which received an injunction to prohibit application to Americans. As I stated earlier, congress is notorious for passing illegal laws since 9/11 and the federal courts usually nullify them.

If, as you say, the law is whatever congress says it is, then how can other countries ever know what to expect in their relations with the US? Since treaties and US law are the supreme law of the land, the US may not violate a treaty without expressly stating that it is abrogating the treaty.


RoccoR

DOD Maintains lists for operational and intelligence purposes.

NIKA: The plethora of terrorist lists confused both the authors of our homeland security text book and the instructor. The authors stated that a strategic plan cannot be developed until a real definition of terrorism is the same across all executive agencies.

I am still doing the research on Iraq oil contracts…

 

[Nika2013]

I forgot to address this:

RoccoR
• Q3: My homeland security books state that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” so who gets to decide? (from NIKA)
(ANS) The definition. If a person or entity meets the criteria, then it is what it is.

NIKA: Under this definition, the American Revolutionaries would meet the criteria. Were they terrorists, or freedom fighters? They were freedom fighters to the colonists, but terrorists to Britain? Isn’t that the way all freedom fighters begin? Actually, my books state that groups are only “terrorists” until they achieve political power and recognition by the UN. Then, they become legitimate actors on the world stage. Maybe Nelson Mandela’s group would be an example. This is why so-called terrorist groups seek recognition and use shock to create visibility for their groups.

Gangs are now being called urban terrorists and I find it interesting that Mayor Daly of Chicago was once a notorious gang member.

 

[RoccoR]

Nika2013, et al,

Terrorism and the law have been around a long time.

• Q1: So, if a country fails to extradite an alleged perpetrator, this is ground for attack and invasion?

(ANS) If the President and Congress say so, then as Caesar use to say: In the name of the People and the Senate - so it will be done. (Or something to that effect.)

Honestly, it depends on what our leadership says and the seriousness of the situation.
​

NIKA: Respectfully, it appears that you are stating that the law, itself,( or precedent) does not matter as long as congress and president make a decision to do something. I will use the example of US v Korematsu where both congress and the president decided to intern the Japanese. History has shown us that this was an illegal act by both. Another example might be when Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus and closed the courts. The most recent would be the nullification of the Military Tribunal Act which stated that all GB prisoners shall be tried in military courts, as well as the 2012 Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act which received an injunction to prohibit application to Americans. As I stated earlier, congress is notorious for passing illegal laws since 9/11 and the federal courts usually nullify them.

If, as you say, the law is whatever congress says it is, then how can other countries ever know what to expect in their relations with the US? Since treaties and US law are the supreme law of the land, the US may not violate a treaty without expressly stating that it is abrogating the treaty.

(REFERENCE)

4. Urges all States to fulfil their obligations under international law and take effective and resolute measures for the speedy and final elimination of international terrorism and to that end, in particular:

(a) To prevent the preparation and organization in their respective territories, for commission within or outside their territories, of terrorist and subversive acts directed against other States and their citizens;

(b) To ensure the apprehension and prosecution or extradition of perpetrators of terrorist acts;​

(COMMENT)

All I can say is that Afghanistan was in violation of the law, supra, and they were called on it.

(QUESTIONS)

I need clarification:

• What specific law (national or international) are you claiming that the US violated?

• Responding in hot pursuit of the perpetrators. (Article 51 of the UN Charter).
• Perpetrators found in Afghanistan. (Tora Bora)
• The Taliban Government, have de facto control over the al-Qaeda Camps declined to comply with international law. (Resolution A/RES/46/51)
• The US enforced.

What specifically is the objection?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Nika2013]

One article on oil:


NO WAR FOR OIL?

Western oil firms remain as US exits Iraq - Features - Al Jazeera English
Baghdad, Iraq - While the US military has formally ended its occupation of Iraq, some of the largest western oil companies, ExxonMobil, BP and Shell, remain.
On November 27, 38 months after Royal Dutch Shell announced its pursuit of a massive gas deal in southern Iraq, the oil giant had its contract signed for a $17bn flared gas deal.
Three days later, the US-based energy firm Emerson submitted a bid for a contract to operate at Iraq's giant Zubair oil field, which reportedly holds some eight million barrels of oil.
Earlier this year, Emerson was awarded a contract to provide crude oil metering systems and other technology for a new oil terminal in Basra, currently under construction in the Persian Gulf, and the company is installing control systems in the power stations in Hilla and Kerbala.
Iraq's supergiant Rumaila oil field is already being developed by BP, and the other supergiant reserve, Majnoon oil field, is being developed by Royal Dutch Shell. Both fields are in southern Iraq.
According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), Iraq's oil reserves of 112 billion barrels ranks second in the world, only behind Saudi Arabia. The EIA also estimates that up to 90 per cent of the country remains unexplored, due to decades of US-led wars and economic sanctions.
"Prior to the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, US and other western oil companies were all but completely shut out of Iraq's oil market," oil industry analyst Antonia Juhasz told Al Jazeera. "But thanks to the invasion and occupation, the companies are now back inside Iraq and producing oil there for the first time since being forced out of the country in 1973.

 

[Nika2013]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HF17Ak01.html
Knight's moves in the Gulf
It is in this context that the current struggle over Iran must be viewed. Iran occupies a pivotal position on the tripolar chessboard. Geographically, it is the only nation that abuts both the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea, positioning Tehran to play a significant role in the two areas of greatest energy concern to the United States, Russia and China. Iran also abuts the strategic Strait of Hormuz - the narrow waterway from the Gulf to the Indian Ocean through which about one-quarter of the world's oil moves every day. As a result, if Washington ever lifted its trade embargo on Iran, its territory could be used as the most obvious transit route for the delivery of oil and natural gas from the Caspian countries to global markets, especially in Europe and Japan.


After the Iraq Oil Ministry refused to deal with many US companies, the companies went to the Kurdistan Province to get contracts:

"We are working to cancel (France’s) Total's stake in the Halfaya contract. We will disqualify and terminate the contract of any company signing a deal with the Kurdistan region without the approval of the oil ministry," Abdul-Mahdy al-Ameedi, director of the ministry's contracts directorate, told reporters.
Total declined to comment on the Iraqi statement.

The French company followed U.S. rivals Exxon and Chevron into Kurdistan, which analysts say has huge potential reserves and offers more attractive contract terms than the Iraqi central government's deals.



Checkmate? or correlation is not causation?

 

[Nika2013]

I am going to provide a summary and timeline for my theory tonight, but first I want to state that I have always considered myself a patriot and I love this country, especially when it is at its best...What I do not like are the sleazy behind the scenes acts which threaten humanity and the way that Americans have been treated as fools. I consider myself a person who is carrying on the philosophy of my ancestors who fought in the American Revolution for the constitution and the Bill of Rights. From France to England to Wales, to America, my ancestors were at the apex of European and American history...I write this for those who consider my words to be anti-American. We should not remain oblivious within the shadow of a shadow government. And for those who keep calling me, Dude...I am a woman

 

[Nika2013]

The very best book I have found on the war in Afghanistan and pre/post 9/11 is by a political scientist, Nafeese Ahmed, The War on Freedom. He has the original citations and asks questions, such as : Was the attack on America to open the door for a more aggressive foreign policy and restrictions on liberty at home? "What happened to our defense measures?" Who blocked the investigations? "When was the Afghan offensive first conceived?" He gives a lot of info and background....It makes Ghost Wars by Steve Coll seem like elementary school analysis.

 

[Nika2013]

Again..that the sovereignty of the Afghan people was breached. The Taliban either were or were not the sovereign leaders. George Bush stated that they were not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions as they were not the sovereign leaders of the country (as GB prisoners) Answering RoccoR

To me, it is obvious that there was a race for oil in Iraq and Afghanistan as both countries had just cut deals with other entities for oil or a pipeline. Enter the US and these deals were nullified. The issue that has not been addressed is that BP was part of the Bridas deal in Afghanistan and received a lucrative contract In Iraq....My brother worked for BP for years and my cousin was assistant to the ambassador in Afghanistan. Neither have given information to me, though. Maybe I should ask... At least I think that was his position....It was in Belize and in Africa...Maybe he is an intelligence agent, too..