International Security Assistance Force & the Bonn Agreement

rain · **Posted:** 21 Mar 2010 1:51 am

I wanted to correct the misperception that it is only Britain and the U.S. involved in Afghanistan AND the reasons for them remaining after the initial conflict.
~TO MAINTAIN LAW AND ORDER AND SET UP THE FOUNDATIONS OF PEACE AND STABILITY IN THE REGION.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internatio ... ng_nations

Here is a list of contributors that are currently serving from forces as diverse as the French Foreign legion, United Arab Emirates to Australia and New Zealand forces.

The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) is a NATO-led security and development mission in Afghanistan established by the United Nations Security Council on 20 December 2001[1] as envisaged by the Bonn Agreement.

Contributing nations
All NATO members have contributed troops to the ISAF, as well as some other partner states of NATO. The numbers are based in part from the NATO when more recent numbers are available they are given.

ISAF is also being backed by the 97,200[15] troops of the Afghan National Army and 93,800[16] policemen from the Afghan National Police, who are described by the British Ministry of Defence as "fully equipped and trained".[17][18]

Summary of major troop contributions (44 nations, 3 March 2010):

Quote:

Table of ISAF/NATO Contributors[19]
Country Number of Troops % of Total
United States 50,590 56.53%
United Kingdom 9,500 10.61%
Germany* 4,335 4.84%
France* 3,750 4.19%
Italy* 3,160 3.53%
Canada 2,830 3.16%
Poland* 2,140 2.39%
Netherlands* 1,880 2.10%
Turkey 1,835 2.05%
Australia 1,550 1.73%
Spain* 1,075 1.20%
Romania* 970 1.08%
Denmark* 750 0.83%
Belgium* 560 0.62%
Bulgaria* 525 0.59%
Norway 470 0.52%
Czech Republic* 455 0.51%
Sweden* 410 0.46%
Hungary* 310 0.35%
Croatia 270 0.30%
Albania 250 0.27%
Slovakia* 230 0.26%
New Zealand 220 0.25%
Lithuania* 220 0.25%
Georgia 175 0.19%
Latvia* 170 0.18%
Macedonia 165 0.18%
Estonia* 145 0.16%
Portugal* 110 0.12%
Finland* 95 0.10%
Azerbaijan 90 0.09%
Slovenia* 70 0.08%
Singapore 40 0.05%
Montenegro 4 0.00%
United Arab Emirates 25 0.03%
Greece* 15 0.02%
Bosnia and Herzegovina 10 0.01%
Luxembourg* 9 0.00%
Ireland* 7 0.00%
Ukraine 8 0.00%
Iceland 4 0.00%
Austria* 3 0.00%
Armenia 40 0.04%
Jordan 6 0.00%
Total[19] 89,480 100.00%
NOTE: * denotes EU Countries

BONN AGREEMENT

Quote:

Officially the Agreement on Provisional Arrangements in Afghanistan Pending the Re-Establishment of Permanent Government Institutions, the Bonn Agreement was the initial series of agreements intended to re-create the State of Afghanistan following the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Since no nationally-agreed-upon government had existed in Afghanistan since 1979, it was felt necessary to have a transition period before a permanent government was established. A nationally-agreed-upon government would require at least one loya jirga to be convened; however, in the absence of law and order in the wake of the rapid victory of American and Afghan Northern Alliance forces, immediate steps were felt to be required.

http://www.un.org/News/dh/latest/afghan ... -agree.htm

Quote:

AGREEMENT ON PROVISIONAL ARRANGEMENTS IN AFGHANISTAN PENDING THE RE-ESTABLISHMENT
OF PERMANENT GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS

The participants in the UN Talks on Afghanistan,

In the presence of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Afghanistan,

Determined to end the tragic conflict in Afghanistan and promote national reconciliation, lasting peace, stability and respect for human rights in the country,

Reaffirming the independence, national sovereignty and territorial integrity of Afghanistan,

Acknowledging the right of the people of Afghanistan to freely determine their own political future in accordance with the principles of Islam, democracy, pluralism and social justice,

Expressing their appreciation to the Afghan mujahidin who, over the years, have defended the independence, territorial integrity and national unity of the country and have played a major role in the struggle against terrorism and oppression, and whose sacrifice has now made them both heroes of jihad and champions of peace, stability and reconstruction of their beloved homeland, Afghanistan,

Aware that the unstable situation in Afghanistan requires the implementation of emergency interim arrangements and expressing their deep appreciation to His Excellency Professor Burhanuddin Rabbani for his readiness to transfer power to an interim authority which is to be established pursuant to this agreement,

Recognizing the need to ensure broad representation in these interim arrangements of all segments of the Afghan population, including groups that have not been adequately represented at the UN Talks on Afghanistan,

Noting that these interim arrangements are intended as a first step toward the establishment of a broad-based, gender-sensitive, multi-ethnic and fully representative government, and are not intended to remain in place beyond the specified period of time,

Recognizing that some time may be required for a new Afghan security force to be fully constituted and functional and that therefore other security provisions detailed in Annex I to this agreement must meanwhile be put in place,

Considering that the United Nations, as the internationally recognized impartial institution, has a particularly important role to play, detailed in Annex II to this agreement, in the period prior to the establishment of permanent institutions in Afghanistan,

Have agreed as follows:

THE INTERIM AUTHORITY

I. General provisions

1) An Interim Authority shall be established upon the official transfer of power on 22 December 2001.

2) The Interim Authority shall consist of an Interim Administration presided over by a Chairman, a Special Independent Commission for the Convening of the Emergency Loya Jirga, and a Supreme Court of Afghanistan, as well as such other courts as may be established by the Interim Administration. The composition, functions and governing procedures for the Interim Administration and the Special Independent Commission are set forth in this agreement.

3) Upon the official transfer of power, the Interim Authority shall be the repository of Afghan sovereignty, with immediate effect. As such, it shall, throughout the interim period, represent Afghanistan in its external relations and shall occupy the seat of Afghanistan at the United Nations and in its specialized agencies, as well as in other international institutions and conferences.

4) An Emergency Loya Jirga shall be convened within six months of the establishment of the Interim Authority. The Emergency Loya Jirga will be opened by His Majesty Mohammed Zaher, the former King of Afghanistan. The Emergency Loya Jirga shall decide on a Transitional Authority, including a broad-based transitional administration, to lead Afghanistan until such time as a fully representative government can be elected through free and fair elections to be held no later than two years from the date of the convening of the Emergency Loya Jirga.

5) The Interim Authority shall cease to exist once the Transitional Authority has been established by the Emergency Loya Jirga.

6) A Constitutional Loya Jirga shall be convened within eighteen months of the establishment of the Transitional Authority, in order to adopt a new constitution for Afghanistan. In order to assist the Constitutional Loya Jirga prepare the proposed Constitution, the Transitional Administration shall, within two months of its commencement and with the assistance of the United Nations, establish a Constitutional Commission.

II. Legal framework and judicial system

1) The following legal framework shall be applicable on an interim basis until the adoption of the new Constitution referred to above:
i) The Constitution of 1964, a/ to the extent that its provisions are not inconsistent with those contained in this agreement, and b/ with the exception of those provisions relating to the monarchy and to the executive and legislative bodies provided in the Constitution; and
ii) existing laws and regulations, to the extent that they are not inconsistent with this agreement or with international legal obligations to which Afghanistan is a party, or with those applicable provisions contained in the Constitution of 1964, provided that the Interim Authority shall have the power to repeal or amend those laws and regulations.

2) The judicial power of Afghanistan shall be independent and shall be vested in a Supreme Court of Afghanistan, and such other courts as may be established by the Interim Administration. The Interim Administration shall establish, with the assistance of the United Nations, a Judicial Commission to rebuild the domestic justice system in accordance with Islamic principles, international standards, the rule of law and Afghan legal traditions.

III. Interim Administration

A Composition

1) The Interim Administration shall be composed of a Chairman, five Vice Chairmen and 24 other members. Each member, except the Chairman, may head a department of the Interim Administration.

2) The participants in the UN Talks on Afghanistan have invited His Majesty Mohammed Zaher, the former King of Afghanistan, to chair the Interim Administration. His Majesty has indicated that he would prefer that a suitable candidate acceptable to the participants be selected as the Chair of the Interim Administration.

3) The Chairman, the Vice Chairmen and other members of the Interim Administration have been selected by the participants in the UN Talks on Afghanistan, as listed in Annex IV to this agreement. The selection has been made on the basis of professional competence and personal integrity from lists submitted by the participants in the UN Talks, with due regard to the ethnic, geographic and religious composition of Afghanistan and to the importance of the participation of women.

4) No person serving as a member of the Interim Administration may simultaneously hold membership of the Special Independent Commission for the Convening of the Emergency Loya Jirga.

B. Procedures

1) The Chairman of the Interim Administration, or in his/her absence one of the Vice Chairmen, shall call and chair meetings and propose the agenda for these meetings.

2) The Interim Administration shall endeavour to reach its decisions by consensus. In order for any decision to be taken, at least 22 members must be in attendance. If a vote becomes necessary, decisions shall be taken by a majority of the members present and voting, unless otherwise stipulated in this agreement. The Chairman shall cast the deciding vote in the event that the members are divided equally.

C. Functions

1) The Interim Administration shall be entrusted with the day-to-day conduct of the affairs of state, and shall have the right to issue decrees for the peace, order and good government of Afghanistan.

2) The Chairman of the Interim Administration or, in his/her absence, one of the Vice Chairmen, shall represent the Interim Administration as appropriate.

3) Those members responsible for the administration of individual departments shall also be responsible for implementing the policies of the Interim Administration within their areas of responsibility.

4) Upon the official transfer of power, the Interim Administration shall have full jurisdiction over the printing and delivery of the national currency and special drawing rights from international financial institutions. The Interim Administration shall establish, with the assistance of the United Nations, a Central Bank of Afghanistan that will regulate the money supply of the country through transparent and accountable procedures.

5) The Interim Administration shall establish, with the assistance of the United Nations, an independent Civil Service Commission to provide the Interim Authority and the future Transitional Authority with shortlists of candidates for key posts in the administrative departments, as well as those of governors and uluswals, in order to ensure their competence and integrity.

6) The Interim Administration shall, with the assistance of the United Nations, establish an independent Human Rights Commission, whose responsibilities will include human rights monitoring, investigation of violations of human rights, and development of domestic human rights institutions. The Interim Administration may, with the assistance of the United Nations, also establish any other commissions to review matters not covered in this agreement.

7) The members of the Interim Administration shall abide by a Code of Conduct elaborated in accordance with international standards.

Failure by a member of the Interim Administration to abide by the provisions of the Code of Conduct shall lead to his/her suspension from that body. The decision to suspend a member shall be taken by a two-thirds majority of the membership of the Interim Administration on the proposal of its Chairman or any of its Vice Chairmen.

9) The functions and powers of members of the Interim Administration will be further elaborated, as appropriate, with the assistance of the United Nations.

IV. The Special Independent Commission for the Convening of the Emergency Loya Jirga

1) The Special Independent Commission for the Convening of the Emergency Loya Jirga shall be established within one month of the establishment of the Interim Authority. The Special Independent Commission will consist of twenty-one members, a number of whom should have expertise in constitutional or customary law. The members will be selected from lists of candidates submitted by participants in the UN Talks on Afghanistan as well as Afghan professional and civil society groups. The United Nations will assist with the establishment and functioning of the commission and of a substantial secretariat.

2) The Special Independent Commission will have the final authority for determining the procedures for and the number of people who will participate in the Emergency Loya Jirga. The Special Independent Commission will draft rules and procedures specifying (i) criteria for allocation of seats to the settled and nomadic population residing in the country; (ii) criteria for allocation of seats to the Afghan refugees living in Iran, Pakistan, and elsewhere, and Afghans from the diaspora; (iii) criteria for inclusion of civil society organizations and prominent individuals, including Islamic scholars, intellectuals, and traders, both within the country and in the diaspora. The Special Independent Commission will ensure that due attention is paid to the representation in the Emergency Loya Jirga of a significant number of women as well as all other segments of the Afghan population.

3) The Special Independent Commission will publish and disseminate the rules and procedures for the convening of the Emergency Loya Jirga at least ten weeks before the Emergency Loya Jirga convenes, together with the date for its commencement and its suggested location and duration.

4) The Special Independent Commission will adopt and implement procedures for monitoring the process of nomination of individuals to the Emergency Loya Jirga to ensure that the process of indirect election or selection is transparent and fair. To pre-empt conflict over nominations, the Special Independent Commission will specify mechanisms for filing of grievances and rules for arbitration of disputes.

5) The Emergency Loya Jirga will elect a Head of the State for the Transitional Administration and will approve proposals for the structure and key personnel of the Transitional Administration.

V. Final provisions

1) Upon the official transfer of power, all mujahidin, Afghan armed forces and armed groups in the country shall come under the command and control of the Interim Authority, and be reorganized according to the requirements of the new Afghan security and armed forces.

2) The Interim Authority and the Emergency Loya Jirga shall act in accordance with basic principles and provisions contained in international instruments on human rights and international humanitarian law to which Afghanistan is a party.

3) The Interim Authority shall cooperate with the international community in the fight against terrorism, drugs and organized crime. It shall commit itself to respect international law and maintain peaceful and friendly relations with neighbouring countries and the rest of the international community.

4) The Interim Authority and the Special Independent Commission for the Convening of the Emergency Loya Jirga will ensure the participation of women as well as the equitable representation of all ethnic and religious communities in the Interim Administration and the Emergency Loya Jirga.

5) All actions taken by the Interim Authority shall be consistent with Security Council resolution 1378 (14 November 2001) and other relevant Security Council resolutions relating to Afghanistan.

6) Rules of procedure for the organs established under the Interim Authority will be elaborated as appropriate with the assistance of the United Nations.

This agreement, of which the annexes constitute an integral part, done in Bonn on this 5th day of December 2001 in the English language, shall be the authentic text, in a single copy which shall remain deposited in the archives of the United Nations. Official texts shall be provided in Dari and Pashto, and such other languages as the Special Representative of the Secretary-General may designate. The Special Representative of the Secretary-General shall send certified copies in English, Dari and Pashto to each of the participants.

For the participants in the UN Talks on Afghanistan:

Ms. Amena Afzali

Mr. S. Hussain Anwari

Mr. Hedayat Amin Arsala

Mr. Sayed Hamed Gailani

Mr. Rahmatullah Mousa Ghazi

Eng. Abdul Hakim

Mr. Houmayoun Jareer

Mr. Abbas Karimi

Mr. Mustafa Kazimi

Dr. Azizullah Ludin

Mr. Ahmad Wali Massoud

Mr. Hafizullah Asif Mohseni

Prof. Mohammad Ishaq Nadiri

Mr. Mohammad Natiqi

Mr. Aref Noorzay

Mr. Yunus Qanooni

Dr. Zalmai Rassoul

Mr. H. Mirwais Sadeq

Dr. Mohammad Jalil Shams

Prof. Abdul Sattar Sirat

Mr. Humayun Tandar

Mrs. Sima Wali

General Abdul Rahim Wardak

Mr. Azizullah Wasefi

Mr. Pacha Khan Zadran

Witnessed for the United Nations by:

Mr. Lakhdar Brahimi
Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Afghanistan

ANNEX I
INTERNATIONAL SECURITY FORCE

1. The participants in the UN Talks on Afghanistan recognize that the responsibility for providing security and law and order throughout the country resides with the Afghans themselves. To this end, they pledge their commitment to do all within their means and influence to ensure such security, including for all United Nations and other personnel of international governmental and non-governmental organizations deployed in Afghanistan.

2. With this objective in mind, the participants request the assistance of the international community in helping the new Afghan authorities in the establishment and training of new Afghan security and armed forces.

3. Conscious that some time may be required for the new Afghan security and armed forces to be fully constituted and functioning, the participants in the UN Talks on Afghanistan request the United Nations Security Council to consider authorizing the early deployment to Afghanistan of a United Nations mandated force. This force will assist in the maintenance of security for Kabul and its surrounding areas. Such a force could, as appropriate, be progressively expanded to other urban centres and other areas.

4. The participants in the UN Talks on Afghanistan pledge to withdraw all military units from Kabul and other urban centers or other areas in which the UN mandated force is deployed. It would also be desirable if such a force were to assist in the rehabilitation of Afghanistan's infrastructure.

* * *

ANNEX II

ROLE OF THE UNITED NATIONS DURING THE INTERIM PERIOD

1. The Special Representative of the Secretary-General will be responsible for all aspects of the United Nations' work in Afghanistan.

2. The Special Representative shall monitor and assist in the implementation of all aspects of this agreement.

3. The United Nations shall advise the Interim Authority in establishing a politically neutral environment conducive to the holding of the Emergency Loya Jirga in free and fair conditions. The United Nations shall pay special attention to the conduct of those bodies and administrative departments which could directly influence the convening and outcome of the Emergency Loya Jirga.

4. The Special Representative of the Secretary-General or his/her delegate may be invited to attend the meetings of the Interim Administration and the Special Independent Commission on the Convening of the Emergency Loya Jirga.

5. If for whatever reason the Interim Administration or the Special Independent Commission were actively prevented from meeting or unable to reach a decision on a matter related to the convening of the Emergency Loya Jirga, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General shall, taking into account the views expressed in the Interim Administration or in the Special Independent Commission, use his/her good offices with a view to facilitating a resolution to the impasse or a decision.

6. The United Nations shall have the right to investigate human rights violations and, where necessary, recommend corrective action. It will also be responsible for the development and implementation of a programme of human rights education to promote respect for and understanding of human rights.

* * *

ANNEX III

REQUEST TO THE UNITED NATIONS BY THE PARTICIPANTS AT THE UN TALKS ON AFGHANISTAN

The participants in the UN Talks on Afghanistan hereby

1. Request that the United Nations and the international community take the necessary measures to guarantee the national sovereignty, territorial integrity and unity of Afghanistan as well as the non-interference by foreign countries in Afghanistan's internal affairs;

2. Urge the United Nations, the international community, particularly donor countries and multilateral institutions, to reaffirm, strengthen and implement their commitment to assist with the rehabilitation, recovery and reconstruction of Afghanistan, in coordination with the Interim Authority;

3. Request the United Nations to conduct as soon as possible (i) a registration of voters in advance of the general elections that will be held upon the adoption of the new constitution by the constitutional Loya Jirga and (ii) a census of the population of Afghanistan.

4. Urge the United Nations and the international community, in recognition of the heroic role played by the mujahidin in protecting the independence of Afghanistan and the dignity of its people, to take the necessary measures, in coordination with the Interim Authority, to assist in the reintegration of the mujahidin into the new Afghan security and armed forces;

5. Invite the United Nations and the international community to create a fund to assist the families and other dependents of martyrs and victims of the war, as well as the war disabled;

6. Strongly urge that the United Nations, the international community and regional organizations cooperate with the Interim Authority to combat international terrorism, cultivation and trafficking of illicit drugs and provide Afghan farmers with financial, material and technical resources for alternative crop production.

* * *

ANNEX IV

COMPOSITION OF THE INTERIM ADMINISTRATION

Chairman:…………………………… Mr. Hamid Karzai

Membership (of whom 5 will be Vice-Chairs)
Department of Defence:
Department of Finance:
Department of Foreign Affairs:
Department of the Interior:
Department of Planning:
Department of Commerce:
Department of Mines & Industries:
Department of Small Industries:
Department of Information & Culture:
Department of Communication:
Department of Labour & Social Affairs:
Department of Hajj & Auqaf:
Department of Martyrs & Disabled:
Department of Education:
Department of Higher Education:
Department of Public Health:
Department of Public Works:
Department of Rural Development:
Department of Urban Development:
Department of Reconstruction:
Department of Transport:
Department of Water and Electricity:
Department for the Return of Refugees:
Department of Agriculture:
Department of Irrigation:
Department of Justice:
Department of Air Transport & Tourism:
Department of Border Affairs:
Department of Women's Affairs

* * *

rain · **Posted:** 21 Mar 2010 2:07 am

The previous post is dedicated to this digger. Good onya mate.

Injured digger in Afghanistan fought on

Quote:

An injured Australian soldier continued fighting in southern Afghanistan for two days before he sought help, because he didn't want to let his mates down.

The latest casualty occurred on Tuesday from an improvised explosive device detonated by suspected Taliban insurgents.

The soldier, who sustained back injuries, was one of six Australian Defence Force personnel hurt while travelling in a Bushmaster military vehicle in the Chora Valley, in southern Afghanistan's Oruzgan province.

It brings the tally of soldiers injured in Afghanistan in 2010 to 14.

The commander of the Australian forces in the Middle East, Major General John Cantwell, said the injured soldier would receive medical treatment in the United Arab Emirates.

A medical assessment will determine whether he returns to duty.

"In this case, we have a young bloke who has toughed it out for 48 hours because he didn't want to let his mates down," Maj Gen Cantwell said.

"As soon as he completed the mission and was safely back to Tarin Kowt with his mates he sought help."

The injured soldiers were initially treated at Tarin Kowt, but three of them were transferred to a medical facility in Kandahar, in southern Afghanistan.

They will return to Australia for rehabilitation.

Another soldier is being treated at a US medical facility in Landstuhl, Germany before he is brought back to Australia.

Maj Gen Cantwell said it was unfortunate the soldiers were injured, and it was appropriate for them to return to family and friends.

One soldier will remain in Tarin Kowt and has returned to duty.

To date, 11 Australian soldiers have died and 114 have been injured in Afghanistan since the Howard government sent troops to the US-led war in 2002.

richard.webster · **Posted:** 21 Mar 2010 8:18 am

rain wrote:

The previous post is dedicated to this digger. Good onya mate.

Definitely. An inspirational story, and one of many.

Strongly agree with all of the above. Well said.

Sheila · **Posted:** 21 Mar 2010 8:39 am

Quote:

An injured Australian soldier continued fighting in southern Afghanistan for two days before he sought help, because he didn't want to let his mates down.

But...do these lads actually know who and what they are fighting for?

What is the war for.....and who is the enemy they are fighting?

The conflict in Afghanistan has caused the deaths of thousands of Afghan civilians directly from insurgent and foreign military action, as well as the deaths of possibly tens of thousands of Afghan civilians indirectly as a consequence of displacement, starvation, disease, exposure, lack of medical treatment, crime and lawlessness resulting from the war.

How many dead children...how many dead and terrorised civilians.....Is the Afghanistan War Worth the Price?

jabberwock · **Posted:** 21 Mar 2010 11:47 am

The Swedes are howlin' big time 'boot 'mission creep' there, plus all the Baltic States are furiously pissed off with the way Sweden is handlin' its own blunderin' meddling in a planned pipelinestan up here in the Baltic

The bigger battle lines are bein' drawn with deliberate provocations like the 'rondell hund' sketch frawn by weirdo artist Lars Vilks. The Danes are goin' to the barricades 'boot burkas, and are stirrin' up the heat 'gainst its own muslim population. Swdeen ain't far behind with an up-start political party thaty wants to kick all of them out.

The EU nations Rain mentions are experiencin' their own internal turmoli regardin' Islam. IMHO all this agitation is bein' perp'd by the usual suspects who wanna crush Islam. The oil biz folk want to see Afghan turf paved over and let it be used as a pipeline hub.

It remains to be seen how the present violent uproar in Paki + India will eventually drag in all the surrounding - 'stans' to jump into the fray if there is somethin' in it for them. Money talks, bullshit walks, yes?

rain · **Posted:** 21 Mar 2010 11:51 am

Quote:

Quote:
An injured Australian soldier continued fighting in southern Afghanistan for two days before he sought help, because he didn't want to let his mates down.

But...do these lads actually know who and what they are fighting for?

What is the war for.....and who is the enemy they are fighting?

The conflict in Afghanistan has caused the deaths of thousands of Afghan civilians directly from insurgent and foreign military action, as well as the deaths of possibly tens of thousands of Afghan civilians indirectly as a consequence of displacement, starvation, disease, exposure, lack of medical treatment, crime and lawlessness resulting from the war.

How many dead children...how many dead and terrorised civilians.....Is the Afghanistan War Worth the Price?

Yes, they do. At least the ones I know. Smart bunch of guys who may like a beer or two or three but when push comes to shove they know their business and believe in Freedom.

Extremely politically aware. As I've said Australians can be a bit jokey but behind that there is some serious business going on. :lol:

Cheers.

Sheila · **Posted:** 21 Mar 2010 12:04 pm

Hi, so could you ask them please what they think they are fighting for other than "Freedom"...freedom from what or whom ...and what,to them, would constitute a "victory" or an end to the conflict.

Thomas D. · **Posted:** 21 Mar 2010 2:00 pm

In another century the Forces of the Crown tried, on three seperate occasions to subdue and pacify Afghanistan.
No doubt their motives were thought as essential too.

None of these attempts met with any success.

http://www.britishempire.co.uk/forces/a ... an1878.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Anglo-Afghan_War

Less than ten returned on the retreat from Kabul in 1842

Who was it that suggested ' Those who fail to learn from History are condemned to repeat it '?

TD

richard.webster · **Posted:** 21 Mar 2010 6:39 pm

Roger wrote:

Allow me to translate for these "politically aware" diggers...
"Freedom" means "the Freedom for American companies to build a secure pipeline through the area"
"Exporting Democracy" means "Installing a puppet government that will protect the Freedom of the American companies"

That may be your view. I don't imagine it would be the view of most of those attempting to impose security, or build civil insitutions, however imperfectly. They would translate the freedom to which you refer, as freedom from a brutal theocracy, of the kind that used to drag women into a stadium to be executed in front of a baying mob. Among a host of other crimes against humanity.

Unfortunately I think the subject of this thread, as has been shown above, and also that of "Inside Job", arouse such vehemently opposing views, that there is little point in debating it. I certainly don't wish to poison generally cordial relations in other areas, with people whose input on most subjects I greatly respect, in trying to bridge differences on this topic that are completely irreconcilable.

But occasionally one wishes to register an opposing view to that which often appears to prevail here, hence my wanting to refute the comments above and elsewhere, with all due respect to those who made them; and more particularly to concur very strongly with the sentiments that initiated this thread. But I don't really wish to discuss it further with those whose opinions are so radically different, because, as I said, it is a subject about which I feel very strongly, and about which we will simply never agree.

Eginolf · **Posted:** 21 Mar 2010 6:42 pm

Roger wrote:

"Freedom" means "the Freedom for American companies to build a secure pipeline through the area"

"Exporting Democracy" means "Installing a puppet government that will protect the Freedom of the American companies"

... and not since Chile in 1973 or even Guatemala in 1956 ... it started with Korea in 1953 or even earlier. Since 1946 the US have bombed 46 countries from the air - in the name of peace and civil rights. :evil:

BULLDOGNIC · **Joined:** 24 Apr 2008 2:43 pm **Posts:** 1872

Quote:

All very true, but completely irrelevant to US intervention.
If the "evil nature" of a regime, and its crimes against humanity, were the yardstick for justifying US intervention, the US wouldn't have so vigorously supported so many abominably blood-thirsty tyrants, and it would have invaded many countries before Afghanistan.
Don't let the fact that Saddam and the Taliban were incontrovertibly horrific, confuse you as to the motivations for intervention.

Unfortunately its a very good excuse to intervene though

Will the American public accept Iran's nuclear advancement as warrant enough? Or will another more serious reason come to light?
Regards
Nic

Sheila · **Posted:** 21 Mar 2010 8:44 pm

Seriously...i think most people on this planet are sleeping men walking...

Put the National Geographics to one side on the coffee table & wake up to what is happening around you.

BULLDOGNIC · **Joined:** 24 Apr 2008 2:43 pm **Posts:** 1872

Quote:

Unfortunately its a very good excuse to intervene though

Sheila, I was being sarcastic. In so much as, that seems to be all that it has taken to send "us" to war. The point I was trying to make is that the general populous will believe any threat that the government says is real, and trust them into taking actions against such percieved threat, even when there are alterior motives involved. This is why I said that it is "unfortunately a very good excuse to intervene" ( maybe I should have added "from the layman's perspective" ).
Regards
Nic

rain · **Posted:** 21 Mar 2010 11:32 pm

Woke up to find my thread has been moved to the "Conspiracy Theories" thread. I wish to state I disagree with this move because initially I opened up a seperate thread outside of Inside job because to present incontestable factual information.
While it has taken on the flavour of "Conspiracy theory" due to the postings and peoples opinions on the motivations (I include myself in this) the facts are not in dispute. i.e.

1.) The numbers of the International Security Assistance Force is correct as of the 03/03/2010.

2.) The Bonn Agreement established by the United Nations Security Council.

Eginolf · **Posted:** 22 Mar 2010 7:59 am

rain wrote:

Woke up to find my thread has been moved to the "Conspiracy Theories" thread. I wish to state I disagree with this move because initially I opened up a seperate thread outside of Inside job because to present incontestable factual information.

Well ... that's the ways it goes. Blame me for hi-jacking if ya wanna - I'm from Hitler county.

jabberwock · **Posted:** 22 Mar 2010 11:48 am

aha... somebody said a funny here..."Seriously...i think most people on this planet are sleeping men walking...uh, wot happened to the better 1/2 here, wot are they up to? slavin' away barefoot, pregnant, chained to a stove as ya hear in many languages?

Actually I should be upset and say my usual.. why, I resemble that remark...But in my case when I attempt to get a conversation goin' with my laconic neighbors 'boot the goin's on in the world, if it don't revolve around the local football or ice hockey team, ya meet silence, like in wot? there's is a world outside of Sweden we have to give a 2nd thought 'boot.

When 2 Swedes got done in by roadside bombs in Afghan, ya'd of thunk, if ya went by the hysteria hype in media here, they were the only 2 dudes to meet their demise that way down there. Ya get this 1-sided news slant that Swedes + Danes are carryin' the brunt of the battle.

For those who know a lil' bit 'boot deployment of troopies there. That is a far cry from a war, IMHO. The NYPD of 30,000 police a metro area of say 15-18 million folks in say 200-250 sq miles. The total U.S force of 50,000 is spread out over a huge mountainous area. I will have to check an encyclo to get the area. That token force is there to stir up a hornets nest. IMHO

There ain't no way in hell 50,000 troopies are ever gonna subdue that land, short of nukin' every inch of it. The only thing I see goin' on is that no large scale military support of Iran by Islamics can get to Iran or conversely no large scale military support by Islamics to Pakistan. These countries are militarily supported by a tacit status quo of the major weapons suppliers of the world, and that is mega bux we talk 'boot here.

Why else the current artificially high price of oil that gluts world markets? Iraq produces more now than ever before, where does all that money go?

rain · **Posted:** 24 Mar 2010 7:38 am

Sheila:

Quote:

Seriously...i think most people on this planet are sleeping men walking...

Put the National Geographics to one side on the coffee table & wake up to what is happening around you.

IMHO I'm not sure who this aimed at but if it is aimed at Richard. I just wish to clear this up. That comment or "piece of advice" absent of any true understanding of Richard's interest in this.

Richard has been to Iraq, (I'm not sure about Afghanistan). He has worked in Iraq in a peaceful manner. He has seen first hand some sites of which we talk about.

Now I just wish to say because the comment maybe was to malign a good person that HE PUT HIS COPY OF NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC down, he opened his eyes and he is a good caring respectful person who saw first hand the areas of which we are talking about.

It was to belittle him and the knowledge he brings to this forum and make him look as if he is just someone whom reads about an issue in a book who has no understanding of the truth.

This is in fact wrong.

I doubt very much because of the comment Richard will post any interesting articles from National Geographic again, I'm sure he gets the message, but I wish say -

I appreciate your articles and knowledge Richard. I appreciate you contribution and the effort you put in to getting it right.

If I am guilty of anything it is when you say "just a few thoughts" it is to groan and giggle because I know it will require me to put a little more effort into study because I know how much you've put into yours. :lol:

So Cheers, Richard, I hope you come and share again. National Geographic and Rain needs you.

richard.webster · **Posted:** 24 Mar 2010 7:44 am

Thanks for the very kind comments, though just for the record I lived on the other side of the border, in Kuwait.

Nat Geo is something of an addiction, so no chance of me giving that up. :wink:

Cheers.

Sheila · **Posted:** 24 Mar 2010 8:01 am

My comments were not meant to be construed personally and were not directed at any singular person....Richard & i get along fine young lady...so please stop stirring things up...this is a discussion forum.

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm ... ndid=00440

"NATO is rarely called to account. Their version of events, usually originating from the soldiers involved, is rarely seriously challenged.

This particular raid, in the early hours of Feb 12, piqued my interest. I contacted some of the relatives by phone, established it was probably safe enough to visit, and I finally made it to the scene almost a month after unidentified gunmen stormed the remnants of an all-night family party.

It’s not the first time I’ve found NATO lying, but this is perhaps the most harrowing instance, and every time I go through the same gamut of emotions. I am shocked and appalled that brave men in uniform misrepresent events."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 061709.ece

"No one has claimed responsibility for the killings. A US official in Kabul refused to identify the force involved, citing “utmost national and strategic security interests”.

The United Nations has criticised intelligence agencies in Afghanistan in the past for using paramilitary groups to carry out “extrajudicial killings”. If the force was controlled by the CIA or Afghanistan’s domestic intelligence service it would be exempt from new Nato guidelines designed to limit night raids...."

For the record my family & i travelled extensively through Iran, Afghanistan, the Khyber pass & Pakistan back in '74....i remember the beauty of these places and how they used to be.

rain · **Posted:** 24 Mar 2010 8:06 am

Quote:

My comments were not meant to be construed personally and were not directed at any singular person.

Well you should have realised the impact on people. Considering Richard is the primary contributer of NAT GEO articles on this foruma and a subsciber to the mag...

Anyway you get the benefit of the doubt, what I say still stands because I know others will have viewed that way.

And thanks for the apology, because we all suffer if Richard doesn't contribute - it was an apology wasn't it?

Sheila · **Posted:** 24 Mar 2010 8:14 am

Quote:

There is absolutely no hope for the Afghans. The billions of dollars of development aid do not benefit ordinary Afghans. Abject poverty is the rule of the day. Orphans and widows roam the streets to make a living. The NGOs and foreign advisors enjoy life to the fullest. They are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars, enjoy luxury vehicles and houses, while ordinary Afghans die from homelessness, hunger and disease.

[Mohammed Daud Miraki, MA, MA, PhD]

Quote:

One sensibly can ask where all of this is headed. The alleged American goal is the pacification of Afghanistan and the elimination of regional support for terrorism. However, it appears demonstrable that daily the cadres of Afghani people who roundly hate the United States expand and diversify. At the same time the pools of injured families, tribal communities and ethnic groups grow with each drone attack. The gross effect is to turn a war for hearts and minds into a wholesale transfer of respect and sympathy to the other side.

This means that the United States is not merely losing this war; it is planting the seeds for enduring hostility. After eight years of little more than jungle warfare, it is obvious that a military attack on militants in this region kills some alleged enemies while generating some more real ones. The hardest question to answer is: Why?

http://www.rense.com/general89/afgg.htm

Thomas D. · **Posted:** 24 Mar 2010 10:39 am

Why ?
Good question ! Ask William Brydon :wink:

TD

Serendipity · **Joined:** 20 May 2008 3:32 pm **Posts:** 2894

I wonder if the majority of you seperate the US government from the regular US citizen on the street? I don't think you do. And you need to, because the 2 groups are bi-polar opposites. Haven't you seen the approval polls recently? The American People DO NOT SUPPORT what our government(s) is doing.

We have been protesting against it.
We have been emailing, calling and faxing.
The only thing left to do, is show up in Washington, with force of arms (this is next).

It's so easy to blame it all on AMERICA and shove us ALL under that label, when the American people are completely frustrated trying to stop those very things the international community is complaining about. Thinking we are stupid, slobbering fools with a sinister agenda against the rest of world is complete and udder hog-wash...yep, the people who were murdered on 9/11 were in on it!!! Or maybe they just deserved to die because they were American and look at what we are doing to the rest of the world... :roll:

The American Corporations that are being accused of all of the evil in the world ARE NO LONGER AMERICAN COMPANIES. They aren't owned by us. AIG, Japanese corp. not American; BP, not American; UBS, not American; AXA, not american. Securitas AB, not american. The board members for these HUGE multinational corporations are NOT AMERICAN. How many Americans do you suppose run Lloyds and The City of London????

I'll be glad to post the board members names and bios for anyone who doesn't want to accept the truth.

The American people are waking to what is being done TO THEM and atrocities being committed in THIER NAME. Up till now, the American public has been too busy working 2 or more jobs to keep bankers from their doors to pay much attention. (We have less HOLIDAY/VACATION time than ANY country in the world). Now that we are mostly all unemployed, we have time to concentrate on restoring our republic.

Sheila · **Posted:** 24 Mar 2010 12:28 pm

Yes TD, even then.... The British denied that they were invading Afghanistan, instead claiming they were merely supporting its legitimate Shuja government "against foreign interference and factious opposition."

jabberwock · **Posted:** 24 Mar 2010 11:58 pm

How many folks are familiar with these details?... Here are quotes I found on the 'Net. I list the websites I found them in...

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2008/ ... ns-and.php
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php ... -principle
http://www.cicr.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/57jq7h
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/0 ... 74039.html
http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/bitstream/2438 ... manity.pdf
http://www.counterpunch.org/mosqueda02272003.html
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/10/what ... ey-do.html
Here are samples of what these websites say

Other defendants use their testimony to emphasize they were merely following orders--although IMT disallowed defense of superior orders, the issue was raised anyway in the hope it might affect sentencing.The indictments against the defendants would prohibit defenses based on the notion of following orders issued by superiors, as well as tu quoque (the "so-did-you" defense). Delegates were determined not to let defendants, their German lawyers turn the trial into one focused on questionable war conduct of Allied forces.
1948 Genocide Convention represents the most significant treaty in international criminal law to address massive human rights abuses. International law developed an elaborate body of law outside the treaty process that addresses a broad range of systematic atrocities. This corpus, aka "crimes against humanity," remains primarily a product of customary international law, its elaboration involves a different intellectual task from that in comprehending the Genocide Convention and other treaties. n1
A definition of "crimes against humanity" as a label for a category of international crimes was first articulated in the Nuremberg Charter in 1945, n2 with a similar definition appearing shortly thereafter in the Tokyo Charter, n3 with further modifications in Allied Control Council Law No. 10. n4
Subsequent efforts at codification were not successful, n5 although international instruments relating to specific aspects of "crimes against humanity" were adopted, n6 and national prosecutions resulted in a small body of helpful case law. n7 A recent development was the adoption of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court n8 which elaborates [*76] the definition of this offence, n9 and precisely determines its elements. n10
The absence of a specialized convention for "crimes against humanity," and its consideration as a category of international crimes whose specific contents consist of a number of crimes contained in the laws of most national legal systems, required an exhaustive study to distinguish such a category of crimes from "ordinary" municipal crimes (i.e., murder, assault, torture, etc.).

During Iran-Contra hearings of 1987, Sen Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, decorated WW2 veteran and hero, told LTC Oliver North he was breaking his oath when he blindly followed the commands of Ronald Reagan. Inouye stated, "The uniform code makes it abundantly clear it must be the Lawful orders of a superior officer. It says, 'Members of the military have an obligation to disobey unlawful orders.' This principle was considered so important we, the government of United States, proposed it be internationally applied in the Nuremberg trials." (Bill Moyers, "The Secret Government", Seven Locks Press; in PBS 1987 documentary, "The Secret Government: The Constitution in Crisis")
Senator Inouye refers to Nuremberg trials in post WW II era, when U.S. tried Nazi war criminals and not allow them to use the reason or excuse they were only "following orders" as a defense for their war crimes which resulted in deathsof millions of innocent men, women, and children. "In 1953, Dept of Defense adopted principles of Nuremberg Code as official policy" of United States. (Hasting Center Report, Mar-Apri1991)
Attorney Gen Mukasey’s misperceived claim concerning an alleged cover provided by OLC opinions is tantamount to a claim that within the executive branch orders or authorizations are a complete defense – a claim tneither correct under international law nor acceptable in a democracy under the rule of law. For centuries, our courts recognized such claims are false. A few examples are worth highlighting. In 1804, in Little v. Barreme (The Flying Fish), 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 170, Chief Justice Marshall ruled “orders given by the executive” and executive “instructions cannot change the nature of the transaction, or legalize an act which, without those instructions, would have been a plain trespass” against the law, the Chief Justice adding: “[i]f his instructions afford him no protection, the law must take its course.” 2 years later, in United States v. Smith, 27 F. Cas. 1192 (C.C.D.N.Y. 1806), Justice Paterson affirmed the President is bound by the law and “cannot dispense with its execution, still less can he authorize a person to do what the law forbids.” If the President approved a violation, Paterson stressed, “it would not justify the defendant in a court of law, nor discharge him from the binding force” of law.

In 1852, Mitchell v. Harmony, 54 U.S. (13 How.) 115, 137, affirmed that superior orders are not a defense: “[an] order to do an illegal act ... can afford no justification.” Later, Justice Miller, in Elger’s Adm’r v. Lovell, 8 F. Cas. 449, 454 (C.C.D. Mo. 1865), recognized “no proclamation of the president can change or modify” the reach of the “law of nations.” At that time, Attorney Gen Speed, in 11 Op. Att’y Gen. 297, 299-300 (1865), recognized the laws of war and more general laws of nations “are of binding force upon departments and citizens of Government” neither Congress nor the Executive can “abrogate them or authorize their infraction.” A district court affirmed, in Ex parte Orozco, 201 F. 106, 111-12 (W.D. Tex. 1912), conduct resting “merely upon an order directed by the President” was illegal and cannot “be sustained in a court of justice.” Certainly a mere OLC opinion can have no more authority than a presidential authorization, directive, or order.

What have U.S. tribunals ruled concerning the putative reach of foreign official directives? In U.S v. Von Leeb, et al., during Subsequent Nuremberg Proceedings, the U.S. military commission correctly ruled that international law “must be superior to and where it conflicts with, takes precedence over National Law or directives issued by any national government authority. The directive to violate International Criminal ... Law is void and can afford no protection to one who violates such law in reliance on such a directive.” The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg applied an ultra vires rationale to recognize “[h]e who violates the laws of war cannot obtain immunity while acting in pursuance of the authority of the State if the State in authorizing action moves outside its competence under international law.”

In contrast to Mukasey’s misconception concerning the alleged cover provided by OLC opinions, Supreme Court recognized in United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220 (1882), that “No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All officers of government, from highest to lowest, are creatures of the law, are bound to obey it. It is the only supreme power in our system of government, every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives.”

When courts are involved, it is important to remember numerous cases recognize judicial power to second-guess legal propriety of executive opinions, authorizations, orders, decisions taken in time of war with respect to the seizure of persons and property and the status and treatment of persons. See, e.g., Paust, Judicial Power to Determine the Status and Rights of Persons Detained With out Trial, 44 HARV. INT’L L.J. 503, 520-24 (2003). As documented in Beyond the Law at 21-22, 169-72, every relevant federal and state judicial opinion since the dawn of the United States, including several U.S. Supreme Court opinions, has affirmed that all persons within the executive branch are bound by the laws of war and that the laws of war place limitations on the authority of any member of the executive branch. Dooley v. United States, 182 U.S. 222, 231 (1901), is illustrative: “[military powers are] regulated and limited ... directly by the laws of war.”

As a matter of common sense, it is legally and morally impossible for any member of the executive branch to be acting lawfully or within the scope of his or her authority while following OLC opinions that are manifestly inconsistent with or violative of the law. General Mukasey, just following orders is no defense! U.S. Attorney Gen Eric Holder appointed Assistant United States Attorney John Durham to investigate torture by U.S. officials since President Bush commenced “war on terror,” in the same act gave political cover from that prosecutor to anyone who actually committed torture.
 “I was only following orders” is now apparently a complete defense under the Holder Justice Department. But this was precisely the defense rejected at Nuremberg trials after WW2 from German soldiers who committed war crimes. The accused claimed they should be held innocent from punishment for killing Jews and others because they were only follow Führer's legal orders. Although there were numerous problems with Nuremberg trials, one truly worthwhile precedent to come out of tribunals was the principle , men are always responsible for their own actions.

Statute of the International Criminal Court
Over 50 years elapsed since the London Conference drafted the Nuremberg Charter. The Rome Conference could not seek to duck the issue in 1949 nor, as a result of the structure of the Statute, could they seek to restrict any provision to grave breaches. They were not looking back to crimes already committed but forward to conflicts not yet envisaged.

Many at the Conference want to retain the Nuremberg standard [19]. They cite Statutes of 2 ad hoc Tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda and argued that the sort of crimes that would be dealt with by the ICC would be such that any question of superior orders would be irrelevant. Others were more cautious [20]. The structure of the Conference meant that the general principles were being drafted at the same time as the crimes themselves were being elaborated. It was not clear whether the Court would be restricted to crimes “committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes” or whether individual crimes would be within the jurisdiction of the Court. The tension was in some ways similar to that to be found between the jurisprudence of the Nuremberg Tribunal itself and that of the Tribunals established under Allied Control Council Law No. 10.

The decision taken to adopt Article 33 represented, in the view of most, a sensible practical solution to be applied in all cases. In particular, it was limited to war crimes, as it was recognized that conduct that amounted to genocide or crimes against humanity would be so manifestly illegal that the defence should be denied altogether in consistency with the Nuremberg standard. It would not prevent superior orders being raised as part of another defence such as duress.

Since the conclusion of the Rome Conference, it is possible to examine Article 33 against the list of crimes and against the other provisions in the Statute dealing with the mental element (Article 30) and mistakes of fact and law (Article 32). It contains a high standard. 3 requirements in Article 33, para1, are cumulative not disjunctive. The accused must be under a legal obligation to obey orders -- a moral duty is not enough. Superior orders mean just that -- orders. The government official who carries out instructions which amount to war crimes is not protected unless he is subject to some legal compulsion. The fact he might lose his job if he refused is, it is suggested, not sufficient.

Even if this first hurdle is overcome, the defence is made out only if the accused did not know that the order was unlawful AND the order was not manifestly unlawful. There is an uncertainty here in where the burden of proof lies. Article 67, paragraph 1(i), provides that the accused is entitled “not to have imposed on him or her any reversal of the burden of proof or any onus of rebuttal.” Although it would seem therefore that only an evidentiary burden can be placed on the accused, Article 67 begins with the words “having regard to the provisions of this Statute” ; it could be argued in this case there is a greater burden placed upon the accused than merely evidentiary. This may become clearer when the Rules of Procedure have been drafted.

A study of the list of crimes contained in Article 8 reveals this defence, if it is such, will be extremely limited in scope. Majority of crimes are so manifestly illegal the issue would never arise. However, this may not necessarily be the case for all crimes and for all ranks. An example may suffice : Article 8, paragraph 2(b)(xix), provides that it is an offence to employ “bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions.” Few private soldiers are expert in the wounding effects of different types of ammunition and few could probably identify bullets to which this prohibition would apply. At present, it is unclear what mental element is required for this offence. Article 30 states “unless otherwise provided”, both intent and knowledge are required. Intent is defined as where :
“(a) in relation to conduct, that person means to engage in the conduct ;
(b) in relation to a consequence, that person means to cause that consequence or is aware it occur in ordinary course of events.”
Similarly, knowledge is defined as “awareness that a circumstance exists or a consequence will occur in the ordinary course of events.” If this provision requires particular knowledge of the propensity of bullet in question, it sets a high standard and attempts may be made to provide otherwise in “Elements of Crimes” drafted ÏAW Article 9 of Statute [21]. What that might lead to remains to be seen, it'd seem the gravamen of this offence, taken from 1899 Hague Declaration concerning Expanding Bullets, is in the issuing of such bullets rather than in activities of individual soldier who acts in good faith with ammo issued to him. It may come down to an issue of intent, but to impose a strict liability test would seem to be somewhat harsh.

At the end of the day, the combination of intent provisions of Article 30 and “Elements of Crimes” may resolve these issues and render the provisions of Article 33 redundant. That is not yet clear it is suggested the text laid down in that article provides a satisfactory balance between interests of justice and obligations of a soldier. It does not provide, an escape to impunity but may, in those rare cases when it is likely to be invoked, provide justice to a soldier who finds himself carrying responsibility for decisions made in good faith on the basis of orders given by others who had information, denied to the accused himself, which rendered the order illegal.

Fratto made this admission about DoJ lawyers as part of White House’s recent push to publicly defend waterboarding as legal and justified. In doing so, Fratto confirmed the admin defense of CIA’s use of torture is based upon a fact waterboarding was approved at the highest levels (maybe the president signed off on it too?). Sen Sheldon Whitehouse (RI) noted when questioning Attorney Gen Michael Mukasey this amounts to nothing more than the Nuremberg defense (i.e. claiming what one did was not illegal simply because one was ordered to do it). Nuremberg defense was rejected at the time of Nazi trials. In U.S. and international law, no one is required to follow an unlawful order. On the contrary, an unlawful order must be resisted.

What all of that boils down to is that citizenry are not obligated to carry out unlawful orders. The Judiciary is expected to challenge their host govt when any of its leaders order folks to perp unlawful actions. The Nurnberg Statutes are International Law, ever since the UN elevated them to that status.

This creates a full circle daisy-chain here yes? With a non-stop circular chain of finger pointing. Who is gonna step in the midst of this humongous cluster circle jerk? The Bible has the gog-magog invasion as the 1st step to establishin' some semblance of order, the advent of AntiC as a result of the Rooski's gettin' decimated, which creates te power vacuum which makes AntiC inevitable, and the step to the road to Armageddon, the appearance of a 200 million man army from the east.

Since Afghan + Pakistani turf sit asride this invasion path fron the east, they are the QUI BNO benefactors by default, yes? The U.S is on its way to oblivion. It can't keep printin' money and expect the rest of the world to wall paper their homes with them. IMHO this over proliferation of amareekin dollahs encirclin' the planet, with nuthin' by Congressional hot air to keep them afloat in an attempt to make them the default de facto single world currency just ran its course.

5 economically weak basket case EU ountries are poised to make the Euro crash as well. As a souvenir I bought in Vienna 35+ years ago, its a 5 billion reichsmark from the Weimar Republic printed on just 1 side, the reverse is blank. I should have saved my inflated French francs of the 50's, I made the mistake in the 60s of exchangin' them for de Gaulle's new, improved, revised French Franc where they lopped off a few zero's, just like the Turks did not so long ago

I foresee a Weimar repetition brewin' in the U.S just like what Nixon, LBJ. Pappy Bush did to expand by 10 fold the number of dollahs in circulation, 'tween the 60s- 80s Then along came the 100% marked-up derivatives dollahs that the world is saturated with toady. its this dollar based permanent war economy bein' jammed down everybody's throat that is the reason why it will never cease.

Its like what Orwell described in 1984, with sphere's of aligned combatants to act as consumers of the output of the military-industrial complex. The drug enhanced, vaccine reinforced sheeple will end up as the cannon fodder as usual.

.

Arcadia Discussion Zone

International Security Assistance Force & the Bonn Agreement

Who is online