Philipinnes

[Imperial Power]

"There is no question that there have been linkages between al Qaeda and activities that have taken place in the Philippines. And second, the United States is clearly interested in al Qaeda. We are interested in a lot more than al Qaeda, and al Qaeda is directly linked to September 11th," Rumsfeld said.

[peaccenicked]

talk about hitting people when they are down

Philippine President Promises to Work for Poor People

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Xinhuanet 2002-01-20 16:42:46


MANILA, January 20 (Xinhuanet) -- Philippine President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo said Sunday that she will endeavor to work for
the poor and improve their living conditions in her second year in
office.
"I will dedicate the second year of my term to the workers.
They will serve as our inspiration," Arroyo said after attending a
mass at the Edsa Shrine in Metro Manila to celebrate the first
anniversary of the People Power uprising that catapulted her to
power.
Edsa Shrine is the site of the military-backed popular revolt
that swept Arroyo to presidency on January 20, 2001 in place of
corruption-tainted Joseph Estrada. The shrine also witnessed a
similar movement that overthrew the administration of late
President Ferdinand Marcos and put Corazon Aquino in place in 1986.
Arroyo said Manila Archbishop Cardinal Jaime Sin, a key player
in the two uprisings, is correct that "our policies should be
directed at the poor, not merely as charity." "We should spend
time with them and listen to them," she said.
After the mass, the president went to visit several poor
communities in the capital area to reach out to the poor. In the
past several days, she also visited depressed areas out of Manila.
Also on Sunday, more than 2,000 members of the militant group
Bagong Alyansang Makabayan, or the New Alliance of Patriots,
massed up at Mendiola Bridge near the presidential palace to
pressure President Arroyo to live up to the promise she made after
she assumed presidency.
The group, which joined forces to unseat now jailed Estrada,
said the rally was a reenactment of the historic march last year
that finally compelled the disgraced former president to leave the
presidential palace. Church officials earlier banned political
rallies at the Edsa Shrine.
Anti-riot policemen with shields and truncheons buttressed a
barbed wire barricade that separated the marchers from the road
leading to the palace.
Satur Ocampo, a member of the House of Representative from the
leftist party of Bayan Muna, or Nation First, said they are not
directly asking for Arroyo's resignation but instead demanding
that she fulfill the objectives of justice and reforms.

[Imperial Power]

I think you missed the point again. Some Muslims in the Phillipines support al Qaeda and need to be dealt with before they can strike the United States again.

Are you going to quote a leftist news site on every post?

[peaccenicked]

German Minister's Interview
Rips 911 Case Open
Rumor Mill News Reading Room Forum
Posted By: Rosalinda
1-16-2

(DRAFT) [Source: Tagesspiegel, Jan. 13] PARTIAL TRANSLATION

The following interview with Von Buelow appeared in the German daily 'Tagesspiegel,' on Jan. 13.

Q: You seem so angry, really upset.

Von Buelow: I can explain what's bothering me: I see that after the horrifying attacks of Sept. 11, all political public opinion is being forced into a direction that I consider wrong.

Q: What do you mean by that?

Von Buelow: I wonder why many questions are not asked. Normally, with such a terrible thing, various leads and tracks appear that are then commented on, by the investigators, the media, the government: Is there something here or not? Are the explanations plausible? This time, this is not the case at all. It already began just hours after the attacks in New York and Washington and--

Q: In those hours, there was horror, and grief.

Von Buelow: Right, but actually it was astounding: There are 26 intelligence services in the U.S.A. with a budget of $30 billion--

Q: More than the German defense budget.

Von Buelow: --which were not able to prevent the attacks. In fact, they didn't even have an inkling they would happen. For 60 decisive minutes, the military and intelligence agencies let the fighter planes stay on the ground, 48 hours later, however, the FBI presented a list of suicide attackers. Within ten days, it emerged that seven of them were still alive.

Q: What, please?

Von Buelow: Yes, yes. And why did the FBI chief take no position regarding contradictions? Where the list came from, why it was false? If I were the chief investigator (state attorney) in such a case, I would regularly go to the public, and give information on which leads are valid and which not.

Q: The U.S. government talked about an emergency situation after the attacks: They said they were in a war. Is it not understandable that one does not tell the enemy everything one knows about him?

Von Buelow: Naturally. But a government which goes to war, must first establish who the attacker, the enemy, is. It has a duty to provide evidence. According to its own admission, it has not been able to present any evidence that would hold up in court.

Q: Some information on the perpetrators has been proven with documents. The suspected leader, Mohammad Atta, left Portland for Boston on the morning of Sept. 11, in order to board the plane that later hit the World Trade Center

Von Buelow: If this Atta was the decisive man in the operation, it's really strange that he took such a risk of taking a plane that would reach Boston such a short time before the connecting flight. Had his flight been a few minutes late, he would not have been in the plane that was hijacked. Why should a sophisticated terrorist do this? One can, by the way, read on CNN (Internet) that none of these names were on the official passenger lists. None of them had gone through the check-in procedures. And why did none of the threatened pilots give the agreed-upon code 7700 over the [Steuerknueppel: STEERING NOB?] to the ground station? In addition: The black boxes which are fire and shock proof, as well as the voice recordings, contain no valuable data--

Q: That sounds like--

Von Buelow: --like assailants who, in their preparations, leave tracks behind them like a herd of stampeding elephants? They made payments with credit cards with their own names; they reported to their flight instructors with their own names. They left behind rented cars with flight manuals in Arabic for jumbo jets. They took with them, on their suicide trip, wills and farewell letters, which fall into the hands of the FBI, because they were stored in the wrong place and wrongly addressed. Clues were left like behind like in a child's game of hide-and-seek, which were to be followed!

There is also the theory of one British flight engineer:

According to this, the steering of the planes was perhaps taken out of the pilots' hands, from outside.

The Americans had developed a method in the 1970s, whereby they could rescue hijacked planes by intervening into the computer piloting [automatic pilot system]. This theory says, this technique was abused in this case. That's a theory....

Q: Which sounds really adventurous, and was never considered.

Von Buelow: You see! I do not accept this theory, but I find it worth considering. And what about the obscure stock transactions? In the week prior to the attacks, the amount of transactions in stocks in American Airlines, United Airlines, and insurance companies, increased 1,200%. It was for a value of $15 billion. Some people must have known something. Who?

Q: Why don't you speculate on who it might have been.

Von Buelow: With the help of the horrifying attacks, the Western mass democracies were subjected to brainwashing. The enemy image of anti-communism doesn't work any more; it is to be replaced by peoples of Islamic belief. They are accused of having given birth to suicidal terrorism.

Q: Brainwashing? That's a tough term.

Von Buelow: Yes? But the idea of the enemy image doesn't come from me. It comes from Zbigniew Brzezinski and Samuel Huntington, two policy-makers of American intelligence and foreign policy. Already in the middle of he 1990s, Huntingon believed, people in Europe and the U.S. needed someone they could hate-- this would strengthen their identification with their own society. And Brzezinski, the mad dog, as adviser to President Jimmy Carter, campaigned for the exclusive right of the U.S. to seize all the raw materials of the world, especially oil and gas.

Q: You mean, the events of Sept. 11--

Von Buelow: --fit perfectly in the concept of the armaments industry, the intelligence agencies, the whole military-industrial-academic complex. This is in fact conspicuous. The huge raw materials reserves of the former Soviet Union are now at their disposal, also the pipeline routes and--

Q: Erich Follach described that at length in {Spiegel}: ``It's a matter of military bases, drugs, oil and gas reserves.''

Von Buelow: I can state: the planning of the attacks was technically and organizationally a master achievement. To hijack four huge airplanes within a few minutes and within one hour, to drive them into their targets, with complicated flight maneuvers! This is unthinkable, without years-long support from secretapparatuses of the state and industry.

Q: You are a conspiracy theorist!

Von Buelow: Yeah, yeah. That's the ridicule heaped [on those raising these questions] by those who would prefer to follow the official, politically correct line. Even investigative journalists are fed propaganda and disinformation. Anyone who doubts that, doesn't have all his marbles! That is your accusation.

Q: Your career actually speaks against the idea that you are not in your right mind. You were already in the 1970s, state secretary in the Defense Ministry; in 1993 you were the SPD [Social Democratic Party] speaker in the Schalk-Golodkowski investigation committee--

Von Buelow: And it all began there! Until that time, I did not have any great knowledge of the work of intelligence agencies. And now we had to take note of a great discrepancy: We shed light on the dealings of the Stasi and other East bloc intelligence agencies in the field of economic criminality, but as soon as we wanted to know something about the activities of the BND [German intelligence] or the CIA, it was mercilessly blocked. No information, no cooperation, nothing! That's when I was first taken aback.

Q: Schalck-Golodkowski mediated, among other things, various business deals abroad. When you looked at his case more closely--

Von Buelow: We found, for example, a clue in Rostock, where Schalck organized his weapons depot. Well, then we happened upon an affiliation of Schalck in Panama, and then we happened upon Manuel Noriega, who was for many years President, drug dealer, and money launderer, all in one, right? And this Noriega was also on the payroll of the CIA, for $200,000 a year. These were things that really made me curious.

Q: You wrote a book on the dealings of the CIA and Co. In the meantime, you have become an expert regarding the strange things related to intelligence services' work.

Von Buelow: ``Strange things'' is the wrong term. What has gone on, and goes on, in the name of intelligence services, are true crimes.

Q: What would you say determines the work of intelligence services?

Von Buelow: So that we don't have any misunderstandings: I find that it makes sense to have intelligence services....

Q: You don't think much of the earlier proposals by the Greens, who wanted to dismantle these agencies?

Von Buelow: No. It is right to take a look behind the scenes. Getting intelligence about the intentions of an enemy, makes sense. It is important when one tries to put oneself into the mind of the enemy. Whoever wants to understand the CIA's methods, has to deal with its main tasks, {covert operations}: below the level of war, and outside international law, foreign states are to be influenced, by organizing insurrections, terrorist attacks, usually combined with drugs and weapons trade, and money laundering. This is essentially very simple: One arms violent people with weapons. Since, however, it must not under any circumstances come out, that there is an intelligence agency behind it, all traces are erased, with tremendous deployment of resources.

I have the impression that this kind of intelligence agency spends 90% of its time this way: creating false leads. So that, if anyone suspects the collaboration of the agencies, he is accused of the sickness of conspiracy madness. The truth often comes out only years later. CIA chief Allen Dulles once said: In case of doubt, I would even lie to the Congress!

Q: The American journalist Seymour M. Hersh, wrote in the {New Yorker,} that even some people in the CIA and government assumed, that certain leads had been laid in order to confuse the investigators. Who, Herr von Buelow, would have done this?

Von Buelow: I don't know that either. How should I? I simply use my common sense, and-- See: The terrorists behaved in such a way to attract attention. And as practicing Muslims, they were in a strip-tease bar, and, drunken, stuck dollar bills into the panty of the dancer.

Q: Things like that also happen.

Von Buelow: It may be. As a lone fighter, I cannot prove anything, that's beyond my capabilities. I have real difficulties, however, to imagine that all this all sprung out ofthe mind of an evil man in his cave.

Q: Mr. von Buelow, you yourself say that you are alone in your criticism. Formerly, you were part of the political establishment, now you are an outsider.

Von Buelow: That is a problem sometimes, but one gets used to it. By the way, I know a lot of people, including very influential ones, who agree with me, but only in whispers, never publicly.

Q: Do you still have contact with old SPD companions, such as Egon Bahr and former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt?

Von Buelow: There are no close contacts any more. I wantedto go to the last SPD party congress, but I was sick.

Q: Can it be, Mr. von Buelow, that you are a mouthpiece for typical anti-Americanism?

Von Buelow: Nonsense, this has absolutely nothing to do with anti-Americanism. I am a great admirer of this great, open, free society, and always have been. I studied in the U.S.

Q: How did you get the idea that there could be a link between the attacks and the American intelligence agencies?

Von Buelow: Do you remember the first attack on the WorldTrade Center in 1993?

Q: Six people were killed and over a thousand wounded, by a bomb explosion.

Von Buelow: In the middle was the bombmaker, a former Egyptian officer. He had pulled together some Muslims for the attack. They were snuck into the country by the CIA, despite a State Department ban on their entry. At the same time, the leader of the band was an FBI informant.

And he made a deal with the authorities: At the last minute, the dangerous explosive material would be replaced by a harmless powder.

The FBI did not stick to the deal. The bomb exploded, so to speak, with the knowledge of the FBI. The official story of the crime was quickly found: The criminals were evil Muslims.

Q: At the time Soviet soldiers marched into Afghanistan, you were in the cabinet of Helmut Schmidt. What was it like?

Von Buelow: The Americans pushed for trade sanctions, they demanded the boycott of the Olympic games in Moscow....

Q.... which the German government followed...

Von Buelow: And today we know: It was the strategy of the American security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, to destabilize the Soviet Union from neighboring Muslim countries They lured the Russians into Afghanistan, and then prepared for them a hell on earth, their Vietnam. With decisive support of the U.S. intelligence agencies, at least 30,000 Muslim fighters were trained in Afghanistan and Pakistan, a bunch of good-for-nothings and fanatics who were, and still are today, ready for anything.

And one of them is Osama bin Laden. I wrote years ago: ` `It was out of this brood, that the Taliban grew up in Afghanistan, who had been brought up in the Koran schools financed by American and Saudi funds, the Taliban who are now terrorizing the country and destroying it

Q: Even though you say, for the U.S. it was a matter of raw materials in the region, the starting point for the U.S. aggression, was the terrorist attack which cost thousands of human lives.

Von Buelow: Completely true. One must always keep this gruesome act in mind. Nonetheless, in the analysis of political processes, I am allowed to look and see who has advantages and disadvantages, and what is coincidental. When in doubt, it is always worthwhile to take a look at a map, where are raw materials resources, and the routes to them? Then lay a map of civil wars and conflicts on top of that --they coincide. The same is the case with the third map: nodal points of the drug trade.

Where this all comes together, the American intelligence services are not far away. By the way, the Bush family is linked to oil, gas, and weapons trade, through the bin Laden family.

Q: What do you think of the Bin Laden films?

Von Buelow: When one is dealing with intelligence services, one can imagine manipulations of the highest quality. Hollywood could provide these techniques. I consider the videos inappropriate as evidence.

Q: You believe the CIA is capable of anything, [wouldn't stop at anything].

Von Buelow: The CIA, in the state interests of the U.S., does not have to abide by any law in interventions abroad, is not bound by international law; only the President gives orders.

And when funds are cut, peace is on the horizon, then a bomb explodes somewhere. Thus it is proven, that you can't do without the intelligence services; and that the critics are {nuts,} as Father Bush called them, Bush who was once CIA head and President.

You have to see that the U.S. spends $30 billion on intelligence services, and $13 billion on anti-drug work. And what comes out of it?

The chief of a special unit of the strategic anti-drug work declared, in despair, after 30 years of service, that in every big, important drug case, the CIA came in and took it out of my hands. (Rosalinda: Michael Levin)

Q: Do you criticize the German government for its reaction after Sept. 11?

Von Buelow: No. To assume that the government were independent in these questions, would be naive.

Q: Herr von Buelow, what will you do now?

Von Buelow: Nothing. My task is concluded by saying, it could not have been that way [according to the official story] Search for the truth!

[peaccenicked]

more on the phillipines. August 2000


U.S. Refuses to Clean-Up Toxic Waste Left in Philippines
On July 23rd, talks between the U.S. and Philippines on environmental cooperation broke down after the U.S. refused to clean up hazardous waste left behind by two former U.S. military bases.

The two countries were to sign a joint statement on cooperation during a 10-day visit to the U.S. by Philippine President Joseph Estrada, but the talks collapsed after the U.S. rejected any agreement which required it to clean up the former military installations at Clark and Subic Bay.

Recent studies by various independent and government studies have confirmed that large quantities of industrial waste remain in over 47 sites within the former bases. Findings by the People's Task Force for Bases Cleanup, a non-governmental organization, as well as by Greenpeace International, demonstrate that at least 300 residents relocated inside the former bases have either died or are suffering from illnesses due to the contamination. In 1997, a U.S. group, Western International, found heavy metals, pesticides, solvents, and petroleum products in twelve sites in the base and recommended further study into the ground water and soil. Additional studies by the U.S. government, the Department of Defense, and the World Bank have provided detailed documentation of the dangerous toxins which remain at the sites.

Many of the reports revealed that chemicals and toxins drained directly into the soil as a result of fire training exercises. In recent years, health problems such as birth defects, skin diseases and cancer have started popping up in the local population. Last year, dozens of residents, including eight children, died because of exposure to high levels of asbestos, lead, nitrate, dieldrin, mercury and benzene.

The Peoples Task Force for Bases Cleanup has threatened to file a class action lawsuit against the U.S., and is demanding over 102 billion dollars for indemnification for the victims and for the clean up of the bases.

While refusing to clean-up the bases or compensate the victims of the toxic waste, the U.S. did promise to provide President Estrada with a new batch of military supplies. During his 10-day trip to the U.S., Estrada was promised nearly $50 million in new U.S. military hardware, including helicopter gunships, and navy patrol ships. This agreement comes on top of a recent 100-million-dollar military aid package and several bilateral agreements. Such aid is being used by imperialism to fuel an on-going counter-insurgency war in the Philippines.

The Filipino people are currently waging a largescale struggle against increased U.S. militarization of the region. There is widespread opposition, for example, to the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) through which the U.S. military is entrenching itself throughout the country, undermining the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Philippines. In addition to permitting joint military exercises and activities between the U.S. and Philippine armed forces, the VFA provides the U.S. military with special privileges and unhampered access to the country.

All this century, U.S. imperialism has maintained a colonial and neocolonial regime in the Philippines and used it as a military base for projecting its interests throughout the Asia-Pacific region. At this time, the strengthening of U.S-Philippine military ties is vital to U.S. imperialism's strategy in the Asia-Pacific region.

[Imperial Power]

So your saying the US should not remove taliban support and terrorists in the Phillipines?

[peaccenicked]

Yankees go home .

[Imperial Power]

Peace do you wish you were in the Taliban?

[Renegade]

Imperial Moron, do you wish you were in the KKK or COINTELPRO?

[Imperial Power]

No renegade why do you ask?

[peaccenicked]

Did you notice anything about the taleban that was
particularly socialist. i did not. but they are only guilty by association. in an illegal war were there is admitted not enough proof to stand up in a court of law.
With you it is my country right or wrong.

[Imperial Power]

I thought the Video tape, CIA survelliance linking the taliban to suporting bin laden for the last 10 years, numerous confirmed acts of terroism by them, the killing of civilians, many eyewitiness acounts of brutality would be enough. No?

[peaccenicked]

no. It has to stand up in a court of law.

[reagan lives]

Who the hell told you that?

[pce]

"Are you going to quote a leftist news site on every post?"

why not? you quote capitalists...

[Imperial Power]

Well, all I can say is the Taliban should and will be removed around the world along with other terrorists that plan to harm innocents. "Yankees go home" that is really clever peaccnicked. I think you would be hard pressed to find a court in the world that wouldn't find over whelming evidence against the Taliban. Even though wars dont have to go through trial to happen.

[peaccenicked]

Why did not the us not try take the Taleban to an international court to hand over terror suspects?
Is it because the had no substantial evidence
I have published the evidence and counter evidence on my site. There should be a full independent investigation to the matter. There is a petition on line.
for this.
Since you are feigning civilised values. Do you not think a country should try all peaceful means of resolving a conflict in which more than 3000 Afghanis and over 3000
americans have been killed.

[HardcoreCommie]

I think the reason the US didn't bring the terror suspects to international court is because the US hasn't joined any international court. The US hasn't joined any international court so that it may preserve its sovereignty for situations such as this one, in which justice, as it is defined by American law, should be the standard used to punish crimes perpetrated against america.

[peaccenicked]

Chomsky again. I don't want to censor him even if he is loathed by ideologically dependent right wingers who shout about freedom of speech but can't stand hearing the truth.
Shalom: The war in Afghanistan, which policymakers reliably believed might lead to a humanitarian catastrophe, would have been immoral even if there were no plausible alternatives. Nevertheless you and other war critics have frequently been asked about alternatives and I'd like to explore your answers to elaborate and clarify them.

You've drawn attention to the fact that the United States dismissed Taliban offers to turn over bin Laden to a third party for trial. Clearly the U.S. sought nothing less than war. But that doesn't show that there were genuinely peaceful alternatives to war. If the Taliban had given up bin Laden, it probably would have been related to the fact that Washington moved a massive military force to Afghanistan's borders. While the U.S. rejection of peace overtures demonstrates Washington's preference for war, it does not show that the absence of coercive power would have succeeded in bringing the perpetrators of September 11 to justice. (And the same follows for other cases where the U.S. rejected concessions designed to forestall war: by Saddam Hussein in 1990- 91 or by Serbia in 1999.)

None of this makes these wars just, but it does raise the question whether pacific means can adequately combat terrorism (or, more accurately, some terrorism, since the U.S. "war on terrorism" is only aimed at the terrorism of enemies, not of allies, nor of Washington itself).


Chomsky: These and what follows are hard questions, and merit careful thought. I'll try to run through them step by step, expressing some qualms and not so much trying to give answers as outlining some ways in which we might proceed in the search for answers.

Perhaps it's useful to begin by reiterating two obvious but important points, just as framework:

(1) If we propose some principle that is to be applied to antagonists, then we must agree -- in fact, strenuously insist -- that the principle apply to us as well.

(2) While we should certainly seek to reach our own considered judgments about questions of fact, we must recognize that it is a very long step between our opinions, however convincing we find them, and proposals for action. That step requires argument -- substantial argument when the actions proposed have large-scale human consequences: bombing some country, for example.

With this as background, let's turn to the very important issues brought up in the questions.

First, suppose someone were to pose the question: were there "genuinely peaceful alternatives to war"? Before addressing the question, we would clearly have to consider whether it is properly formulated. As put, it seems to presuppose that if peaceful means failed, the US would be entitled to resort to war to gain its ends -- in this case, killing or capturing suspected perpetrators of the crimes of Sept. 11 and those associated with them. But both of us reject the assumption that the US had a right to resort to war. As you point out at the outset, war under the actual circumstances "would have been immoral even if there were no plausible alternatives." Suppose, however, that someone does accept the assumption, and therefore poses the question, as formulated. Here point (1) arises: do we accept the assumption when it applies to us? Do we agree that Nicaragua or Cuba or Haiti or (it's easy to continue) have had the right to resort to massive violence to kill or capture suspected perpetrators of crimes committed against them who are protected from extradition within the US? Crimes that easily compare to Sept. 11, unfortunately.

The case of Nicaragua is particularly clear, and in fact uncontroversial because of the judgment of the World Court and the (vetoed) Security Council resolutions supporting it. But take a lesser case, lesser in that those charged with for terrorism are not U.S. leaders (among them, those now conducting the second "war against terrorism" that Washington has declared in the past 20 years), but rather are just harbored by the US. History doesn't offer controlled experiments, but these cases -- there are several -- are rather close to the one under discussion.

Take Haiti. The U.S. is refusing extradition of Emmanuel Constant, the leader of the paramilitary forces that were responsible for thoU$Ands of brutal killings in the early 1990s under the military junta for which the Bush #1 and Clinton administrations were providing not-such-hidden support. Constant's guilt is hardly in doubt. He was sentenced in absentia by a Haitian court. The elected government has repeatedly called on the U.S. to extradite him, again on September 30, 2001, on the anniversary of the military coup. The request is refused, probably because of concerns about what he might reveal about ties to the U.S. government during the period of the terror, which was not slight: relative to population, it is as if some foreign state, say Iraq, were supporting terrorist forces in the U.S. that had murdered hundreds of thoU$Ands of people among other terrible atrocities. The request for extradition is not merely refused, but ignored, scarcely even reported, right in the midst of the furor about the killing of thoU$Ands of Americans by suspects harbored by the Taliban. Do we then conclude that Haiti had no "genuine peaceful alternative to war"? And since it does not have the capacity for war against the U.S., that it had no alternative to the resort to other means, perhaps bioterror, or blowing up buildings, maybe small nuclear weapons which could perhaps be smuggled into the U.S.? None of us would ever accept such conclusions in this case, or much more extreme ones like it. Should we, then, accept the conclusion in the case at hand? That would seem to be a prima facie violation of the principle (1).

Let's put that aside, and accept what is often the tacit assumption, that the U.S. had the right to resort to the threat or use of violence if there was no "genuine alternative," that is, no other way to compel the Taliban to turn over bin Laden and his associates. We now turn to the factual question: was there an alternative? Here too there is a preliminary problem -- on which I'm sure we agree, but it's perhaps worth bringing up anyway, just for clarity. There is a procedure for extradition. The first step is to present compelling evidence against the suspect. Here the situation is quite different from Haiti, or the contra war, or Operation Mongoose and subsequent terror against Cuba carried out from the U.S.; and many cases like it in which the evidence was clear and uncontroversial. Maybe the U.S. had compelling evidence about bin Laden, maybe not. But it flatly refused to present any evidence to the Taliban, in fact, refused even to request extradition, presumably because that would have suggested some limit on the imperial prerogative to act without any authority. The demand was: hand him over, or else; and if you do, we may leave you alone (overthrowing the Taliban regime was a late afterthought). No government, surely not the U.S., would ever accept such a demand, unless compelled to by the threat of extreme violence. There was, then, no alternative to such threat, if that was the demand, as it was. But that offers no justification for the threat of violence, or its implementation.

Putting aside that issue, would the Taliban have turned over bin Laden and others without the threat of violence? My own judgment is much like yours: highly unlikely. But we do not really know, since no efforts were made, and various Taliban offers, however ambiguous, were summarily dismissed. Similar questions arise for earlier years. But even if we are confident of our judgment, principle (2) arises. There are no consequences, unless we fill in, somehow, a missing chain of argument. That doesn't seem easy.

I think similar considerations arise in the case of Saddam Hussein. The great fear of the Bush #1 administration in August 1990, after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, was that in "the next few days Iraq will withdraw," leaving "his puppet in," and "everyone in the Arab world will be happy" (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Colin Powell). That is, Saddam would do pretty much what the U.S. had just done in Panama, except that Latin America was far from happy. Were those expectations accurate? Were Saddam's subsequent offers of negotiated withdrawal from August to early January 1991 real? We can't know, because they were rejected outright and scarcely even reported. It's reasonable to argue that, if real, the offers were based on the likelihood that massive force would be used. But that brings up (2) once again, and unless the missing chain of argument can be supplied, the most we can conclude is that threats issued through the Security Council, to counter aggression, are legitimate. That much seems to me correct.

Similarly, in the case of Serbia, one can debate whether something like the agreement of June 1999 -- a compromise between the Serbian and NATO stands on the eve of the bombing -- could have been reached by diplomatic means, without 78 days of bombing. We don't know, for the same reasons. What about the need for the threat of force? Here the situation is complex. We have to explore what was happening up to late March 1999, not a simple story. For example, we should take note of the fact that the British, the most hawkish element of the U.S.-run coalition, attributed most of the atrocities in Kosovo to the KLA guerrillas as late as January 1999 (which seems inconceivable, but that was their judgment), and there is extensive evidence that nothing much changed afterwards. That there was severe Serbian repression and atrocities, for many years, is not in doubt, but overcoming it was not a concern for the West -- one reason why Albanians resorted to violence, putting the issue on the agenda finally, by 1998. That does raise a question about the efficacy of violence, though not the one posed in the question: it raises the question of the legitimacy of terrorist violence (as the U.S. and Britain termed KLA actions, up to the time when they began to support them).





(Edited by peaccenicked at 7:06 pm on Jan. 24, 2002)

[reagan lives]

"ideologically dependent right wingers"
A pinko quoting Chomsky is calling others "ideologically dependent." Getting indoctrinated by Chomsky doesn't make you any less of an automaton.

"You've drawn attention to the fact that the United States dismissed Taliban offers to turn over bin Laden to a third party for trial."
Half-truth. The Taliban offered to turn over bin Laden only if we presented them with the evidence we had collected against him. In other words, they said "We will give you this terrorist that you have caught if you tell us how you catch terrorists." Not an attractive option, for reasons that should be obvious even to Chomsky and his flock.


"If we propose some principle that is to be applied to antagonists, then we must agree -- in fact, strenuously insist -- that the principle apply to us as well."
Ah, a prima faci argument, my favorite kind. Chomsky says it, so it must be true. Tell me, peacenick, in your own words...why must we insist that any principle applied to antagonists be applied to us? Why?

OK, I have to run to class, but I'll be back later to tackle the rest of this screed. As Kurtz would say, we'll talk of these things later.

[peaccenicked]

because it is fair. duh.

[reagan lives]

By asserting that the United States and our antagonists should be treated equally (and that such treatment would be "fair"), you assert that the United States is equal to our antagonists? In what way are we equal?

[El Brujo]

I guess the Phillipines is new in the list of AmeriKKKa's most wanted.

[peaccenicked]

Quote: from reagan lives on 2:14 am on Jan. 25, 2002
By asserting that the United States and our antagonists should be treated equally (and that such treatment would be "fair"), you assert that the United States is equal to our antagonists? In what way are we equal?

in the context of terrorism.
1) Law. Equally applied.
to use your own list of values.



(Edited by peaccenicked at 3:31 pm on Jan. 25, 2002)

[reagan lives]

THERE IS NO LAW IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICS.

Get that through your skull. The only thing that you can hold nations to are the treaties that they have signed.

[peaccenicked]

So what is the Hague.
Why is milosevic being tried there?
I can see I have riled you
But would you kindly leave my cranium out of this.
And from an American law proffessor
BOMBING OF AFGHANISTAN IS ILLEGAL AND MUST BE STOPPED
Professor Marjorie Cohn
Thomas Jefferson School of Law
JURIST Contributing Editor
In a patently illegal use of armed force, United States and British bombs are falling on the people of Afghanistan. There are already reports of thousands of dead and wounded civilians from the same kind of American “smart bombs” used in Vietnam and Yugoslavia, with the promise of myriad casualties from unexploded cluster bombs. Yet while the media bombards us with details about the tragic but few deaths from Anthrax, we are shielded from photographs of the dead and injured in Afghanistan.

Jan Ziegler, Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, warned on October 15, “The bombing has to stop right now. There is a humanitarian emergency.” Relief agencies left Afghanistan in the wake of the bombing. The arrival of winter is imminent, when up to 7.5 million Afghans internally displaced by the bombing will be beyond the reach of humanitarian aid. Routing chief suspect Osama bin Laden from his cave with bombs is like finding a needle in a haystack, while mass starvation is inevitable.

The media has created a tidal wave of support in the United States for attacking the country that harbors bin Laden. In a recent Gallup/CNN/USA Today poll, 45 percent of Americans said they were willing to “torture known terrorists if they knew details about future terrorist attacks in the United States,” notwithstanding the United States’ ratification and implementation of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and the fact that the prohibition against torture is considered to be jus cogens, a preemptory or inviolable norm of international law.

Yet in spite of nearly universal global condemnation of the September 11 attacks, the bombardment of Afghanistan does not sit well in the Arab world, which is faced with pictures of wounded Afghan children and Israeli tanks rolling into Palestinian villages. Akhbar el Yom, one of the biggest newspapers in Egypt, featured a photograph of an Afghan child orphaned by the bombs. It sported the caption, “Is this baby a Taliban fighter?” And the recent killings of rebel Northern Alliance supporters by misguided American bombs, has backfired and helped build support for the Taliban. European countries are also beginning to question the wisdom of the sustained bombing campaign, which is killing civilians and failing to accomplish its goal.

Although the horror of the mass tragedy inflicted on September 11 is indisputable, the bombings of Afghanistan by the United States and the United Kingdom are illegal. This bombardment violates both international law and United States law, set forth in the United Nations Charter, a treaty ratified by the U.S. and therefore part of the supreme law of the land under the U.S. Constitution.

The U.N. Charter provides that all member states must settle their international disputes by peaceful means, and no nation can use military force except in self-defense.

The Security Council, made up of representatives from 15 countries from each region of the world, is the only body that can authorize the use of force. Only the Security Council can decide what action can be taken to maintain or restore international peace and security.

The Security Council has a series of options under the U.N. Charter: (1) it can suggest that the United States sue Afghanistan in the International Court of Justice (World Court), for harboring Osama bin Laden and others, if the evidence supports their involvement in these attacks, and seek their immediate arrests; (2) it can order interruption of economic relations, rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio communications and the severance of diplomatic relations; (3) it can establish an international tribunal to try those suspected of perpetrating the September 11th attack; (4) it can establish a U.N. force to make arrests, prevent attacks or counter aggression; and (5) as a last resort, it can authorize the application of armed force with the Military Staff Committee.

The United States has gone to the Security Council twice since the September 11 attack. The Security Council passed two resolutions, neither of which authorize the use of force. Resolutions 1368 and 1373 condemn the September 11 attacks, and order the freezing of assets; the criminalizing of terrorist activity; the prevention of the commission of and support for terrorist attacks; the taking of necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist activity, including the sharing of information; and urging the ratification and enforcement of the international conventions against terrorism (which the U.S. has not ratified).

Although the United States has reported its bombing to the Security Council as required by article 51 of the U.N. Charter, the Security Council has not authorized and could not authorize the use of unilateral military force by the United States and the United Kingdom, or NATO, which is not a U.N. body.

The bombing of Afghanistan is not legitimate self-defense under article 51 of the Charter because: 1) the attacks in New York and Washington D.C. were criminal attacks, not “armed attacks” by another state, and 2) there was not an imminent threat of an armed attack on the U.S. after September 11, or the U.S. would not have waited three weeks before initiating its bombing campaign. The necessity for self-defense must be “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” (Caroline Case, 29 BFSP 1137-8; 30 BFSP 19-6 (1837)). This classic principle of self-defense in international law has been affirmed by the Nuremberg Tribunal and the U.N. General Assembly.

Even if the U.S. was authorized on September 11 to use military force under article 51, that license ended once the Security Council became “seized” of the matter, which indeed it did on September 12, by passing Resolution 1368, and reaffirming in Resolution 1373 on September 28 that it “remains seized” of the matter. By bombing Afghanistan, the United States and the United Kingdom are committing acts of aggression, which is prohibited by the U.N. Charter.

The universal desire is to feel safe and secure. The only path to safety and security is through international law, not vengeance and retaliation. George W. Bush and the U.S. Congress must take the following steps:

immediately stop the bombing of Afghanistan and Iraq, remove all ground forces, and refrain from illegally bombing or invading any other country;
contribute money and people power to the U.N. peacekeeping forces;
refuse to further eviscerate the U.S. Bill of Rights, in the name of national security. (The Uniting and Strengthening America By Providing Appropriate Tools Required To Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA Patriot Act), rushed through Congress in the wake of September 11, vastly expands the government’s ability to place wiretaps, invade e-mails, and hold immigrants in indefinite detention);
not repeat the actions of the U.S. government when it interned Japanese-Americans during World War II, and targeted suspected communists during the McCarthy era;
refuse to allow the racial profiling, and INS and FBI intimidation, of Arabs, Muslims and South Asians; and
submit this matter to appropriate international bodies, including the United Nations and the World Court.
Since no state has executed an armed attack against the United States, this is a criminal matter that can be prosecuted in a number of possible venues. First, the United States could bring criminal prosecutions in its domestic courts for crimes against humanity and for violations for international conventions under the principle of universal jurisdiction, as Israel did when it prosecuted Adolph Eichmann for his role in the Holocaust.

Second, the Security Council could establish a special criminal tribunal for the September 11 attacks, as it did in Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The Montreal Sabotage Convention, which criminalizes the destruction of civilian aircraft while in service, is directly on point and should be used here. It was invoked during the resolution of the dispute between the United States, the United Kingdom and Libya over the handling of the Libyan suspects in the Lockerbie bombing cases. Both the United States and Afghanistan are parties to that convention.

The International Criminal Court would not be an available forum, because 1) it has not yet come into force, as it needs the ratification of 60 states and 43 have ratified thus far; 2) its jurisdiction is limited to crimes occurring after it comes into force; and 3) the United States refuses to ratify the ICC statute, because it is afraid its leaders may become defendants in war crimes prosecutions.

Former Soviet President Mikhail S. Gorbachev wrote in a recent op-ed in The New York Times, “it is now the responsibility of the world community to transform the coalition against terrorism into a coalition for a peaceful world order.” He advocates leadership by the Security Council to take concrete steps such as accelerated nuclear and chemical disarmament, and urges United States ratification of the verification protocol of the convention banning biological weapons, as well as the treaty to prohibit all nuclear testing. Gorbachev also opposes the use of the battle against terrorism “to establish control over countries or regions,” which, he maintains, would not only discredit the coalition; it would prevent its potential for building a peaceful world.

On September 29, the day originally set for anti-globalization protests, thousands marched in the streets demanding peace. Students on campuses across the country are mobilizing to oppose the bombing. Our anti-terrorism coalition must be true to its name, and aim its energy not at the innocent people of Afghanistan, but at building global peace.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marjorie Cohn is an associate professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego, where she teaches International Human Rights Law. She welcomes comments on this essay at [email protected]
November 6, 2001


———————————————————————









JURIST: The Legal Education Network™ is directed by Professor Bernard J. Hibbitts, University of Pittsburgh School of Law, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, in consultation with an international Advisory Board. E-mail: [email protected]
© Bernard J. Hibbitts, 2002. All rights reserved. These pages may not be copied, reposted, or republished, in whole or in part, electronically or in print, without express written permission. This is not an official site of the University of Pittsburgh; the University of Pittsburgh is not responsible for content of, or links from, this site.
NOTICE: JURIST regrets that it cannot provide legal advice. For assistance with specific legal problems, please consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.












(Edited by peaccenicked at 1:08 pm on Jan. 26, 2002)

[peaccenicked]

more on phillipines
U.S. Imperialism Goes to War Against the Filipino People

In what has been described as a "major expansion of the war against terrorism," 650 U.S. troops, including special forces, have been deployed in the Philippines. Already, in Manila, several demonstrations have been organized against the deployment and various opposition and other public figures have spoken out against it.

The U.S. troops will train and advise the Philippine army and take part in combat operations against insurgent forces on the southern island of Basilan. The current U.S.-led offensive is scheduled to last at least until June and could be extended after that; Pentagon officials have also said that the number of U.S. troops could well be increased.

In November, Bush began sending $100 million in military aid to the Filipino government and announced that U.S. was prepared to commit combat troops and "use whatever resources we have" to defeat insurgent forces. The deployment of U.S. troops directly violates the Philippine constitution which bars foreign troops from taking part in combat operations anywhere in the country.

For nearly 50 years, the Philippines was a direct colony of U.S. imperialism. Even after the winning of formal independence, the country has remained a neo-colony in which economic and political life continue to be dominated by U.S. multinational corporations. To maintain this system, the U.S. military has supported a series of reactionary puppet governments.

In sum, U.S. imperialism has declared war against the people of the Philippines. Behind the phony facade of the "war against terrorism," U.S. imperialism is once again interfering in the affairs of a sovereign country and waging war against the liberation struggle of the people.

[pastradamus]

Yes I agree with you in one way you imperial prick,the taliban should be removed from the philipinnes,but those yanks should stop sticking their noses in everybodys shit! Believe it or not the US govt are the most corrupt in the world! eg.propaganda is all over the place,they average a war every 3 years since 1990,they destroy their critics..........dont believe me? www.raisethefist.com........................ALL POWER TO THE SOVIETS!

[pastradamus]

SO fuck charlie manson I snatch him outa his truck hit him with a brick and im dancing!!!!!!!!!!
www.raisethefist.com

"Jesus was the first communist" -ho chi mao-

[pastradamus]

peaccenicked-u are so fucking right! The Hague is a piece of shit,and milosevic shouldnt be there because the arsebandits america and britain are forcing him to do so! The Brittish are the biggest ****s cuz they can get milosevic for war crimes and we cant do shit to them for bloddy sunday! IRISH LIBERATION NOW! NO TO NICE!