Bottom line for me: Either we were attacked by another nation on 9/11

[daedalus_dude]

or multiple nations and our invasion of these nation was a response to that. In that case, anyone detained in connection with these wars is either a regular soldier or member of a voluntary militia,
both of which are fully covered by the geneva convention and must be treated as POWs.

OR

We were attacked by a non-national criminal network. In this case all people detained are regular
criminals, subject to civil laws.

In THAT case however, the invasion of other countries was a totally illegal act under international law, and should lead to the death penalty for those who set it off, by the standards of Nuremberg.


This half-assed gray area bullshit, twisting the law the way we like it, has to stop. It may be fitting for some autocratic regime, but not for a self-proclaimed democracy.

[Ozymanithrax]

1. Invasions of Afghanistan occurred after they refused to turn Bin Laden over to the US

for trial. The Taliban government protected him.
From the bill at Findlaw:

(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.

From the Milwakee Journal Sentinal

Taliban refuse to give up bin Laden
Saturday, September 22, 2001

Islamabad, Pakistan -- Afghanistan's ruling Taliban militia Friday dismissed President Bush's demand that it immediately surrender alleged terrorist Osama bin Laden, vowing instead to engage in a "showdown of might" with the United States.

and...

Resolution 1378, Adopted Unanimously, Anticipates Broad-Based, Multi-Ethnic Transitional Administration, Leading to New Government 14/11/2001

The invasion of Afghanistan was considered legal under US Law and authorized by the UN Security Council.

[daedalus_dude]

2. A law specifically crafted for this occasion.

But I take the point about the UN council. They do however tend to be rather random in their decisions.

[Ozymanithrax]

5. We must not define random the same way.

Random - Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective

The UN has been clear on this type of stuff going back to Korea. They consistently defer to a nations right to defend itself and its citizens. The US showed a real link between Bin Laden and the Taliban Government who refused to turn him over, making their claim legal.

Now, there may have been better ways of dealing with the problem, such as the use of Special Forces just to take Bin Laden and any of his people we could get. We could have used enough American troops so when we cornered him at Tora Bora we could have killed or captured him rather than letting him escape. We could have refused to allow Pakistan to fly out Taliban leaders (as has been reported in several places). Under Bush, the Afghanistan war was fought badly. In that first year, we were taking very few casualties and things were relatively peaceful. We could have pulled out then and let the Afghani's sort it out.

Personally, I think we invaded Afghanistan on the cheap because the Bush administration did not want to tie up an invasion force they intended to use to invade Iraq. He refused to leave because, if we were thinking about going to war with Iran, attacking from two directions makes a lot of sense. But going there was legal, even if it was done stupidly.

[ixion]

3. The Taliban asked for evidence, the US provided nothing

and saying it was authorized and legal is just a bunch of voodoo bureaucracy. The Truth is that we invaded a sovereign nation that had done nothing to us, and we continue to occupy that nation against it's will today.

[Ozymanithrax]

7. That is not accurate, either through the UN or our own authorizaiton to use force.

It was done legally albeit stupidly according to international law.

[ixion]

9. it may have been legal politically, however there was no moral justification

I distinctly remember the Taliban asking the US for evidence, and distinctly remember the US not providing that evidence before bombing the crap out of them.

All the world was American, and it was pretty much a given we were going to bomb someone for what had happened. At best, the UN was trying to channel our (faux) rage.

[Ozymanithrax]

10. There is never a moral justification for war. Never.

I don't even agree that there can be a Just war.

Wars are either necessary or they are not.

[ixion]

11. fair enough... I agree. In that case

it was an entirely unnecessary.

[sinkingfeeling]

4. Thom Hartmann would disagree that the Taliban refused to give up bin Laden.

http://www.alternet.org/world/143893/the_ft._hood_massacre_is_george_bush's_fault

Mullah Omar of Afghanistan's Taliban first offered to arrest bin Laden and turn him over to us (Washington Post, Page 1, October 29, 2001, "Diplomats Met With Taliban On Bin Laden" by Ottaway and Stephens) and then made an explicit offer to arrest Bin Laden and try him for the crime of 9/11 (CNN, October 7, 2001, "US Rejects Taliban Offer To Try Bin Laden"; The Guardian, October 14, 2001, "Bush Rejects Taliban Offer To Hand Bin Laden Over").

[Sebastian Doyle]

8. The Bush Crime Family and their corporate media whores

were able to blur the lines between Al Qaeda and the Taliban to the point where most of the sheeple (and certainly every viewer of FAUX Noize) actually believe the two groups are one and the same.

Ironically, BOTH groups were "former" business associates of the Bush Crime Family itself, Al Qaeda, and especially Osama himself, going back for decades, and the Taliban signing the pipeline deal in Texas in 1997 while the Chimp was governor.

[librechik]

13. Lies--"Bush REJECTS offer of Taliban to hand over Bin Laden"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5
snip

"President George Bush rejected as "non-negotiable" an offer by the Taliban to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden if the United States ended the bombing in Afghanistan.

Returning to the White House after a weekend at Camp David, the president said the bombing would not stop, unless the ruling Taliban "turn over, turn his cohorts over, turn any hostages they hold over." He added, "There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty". In Jalalabad, deputy prime minister Haji Abdul Kabir - the third most powerful figure in the ruling Taliban regime - told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US, but added: "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country".

The offer came a day after the Taliban's supreme leader rebuffed Bush's "second chance" for the Islamic militia to surrender Bin Laden to the US. "

We have no one to blame but Bush for Bin Laden not being in our custody right now.

[malaise]

21. Ding ding

We have a winner

[JackRiddler]

16. And after the invasion was planned and submitted to Bush for approval on September NINTH.

In the months prior to 9/11, in backchannel negotiations involving Russia, India, Pakistan and Germany, the US side gave the Taliban a choice of accepting a power sharing arrangement with the northern alliance and opening the way to a pipeline, or facing an attack. These broke off at the Berlin session in June, where a US negotiator made it known through a Pakistani diplomat that the Taliban had a choice between "a carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs." Rumors of a US invasion planned by mid-October (when it actually happened) circulated among the diplomatic circles of these nations. A plan to attack al-Qaeda in Afghanistan was placed on Bush's desk on September 9th. All that was missing was casus belli.

The Taliban offered to turn Bin Ladin over to a third party for trial (which would have inevitably led to US custody). The Bush regime refused.

[niyad]

22. actaully, that is backwards. the admin refused to have bin laden arrested.

[newtothegame]

6. I wish it were that obvious where the line between "terrorist" and "terrorist government" is drawn.

Unfortunately, our policy against assassinations leads to stuff like this.

[librechik]

12. yes, this will be a tap dance like nobody's seen

what a farce. Can we go ahead and try some torturing war criminals? That would make this so much easier...

[Chemical Bill]

14. Neither - Cheney did it!

And don't go looking for a SARCASM tag here.

Bill

[chimpymustgo]

18. Cheney was overseeing NORAD operations that day. MIHOP CASE CLOSED.

[JonQ]

15. Combatants not wearing uniforms

and not identifying with any nation-state are not covered by the GC I don't think.

[truedelphi]

17. Good post. There is however some ambiguity in

The statement "In THAT case however, the invasion of other countries was a totally illegal act under international law, and should lead to the death penalty for those who set it off, by the standards of Nuremberg."

By setting it off did you mean those who set off the 9 - 11 event, or those who set off the war?

They are actually the same subset of humans, but I'm wondering about your meaning anyway.

[Dreamer Tatum]

19. Small quibble

We were attacked by a non-national criminal network. In this case all people detained are regular
criminals, subject to civil laws.


If you agree that they are criminals, then they are subject to CRIMINAL law, not civil. Unless, of course, you just want to sue them.

[paulsby]

20. your first premise has issues

since these "regular soldiers" don't wear uniforms and hide in civilian populations...