War crimes by US troops

[Cpl Kendall]

Correct

And if you follow them, you will be prosecuted

That's the lesson we have learned after - or rather in - the Second World War: To have followed orders is neither a compurgation nor an exculpation.

Of course that hasn't changed much. In several US Army cases in which soldiers have murdered Iraqi civilians, the soldiers have troted out the "I was only following orders" excuse. I can only assume that their not students of history, interestingly enough the Marine cases have not claimed this. They obviously have a higher caliber of recruits.

[Who is like God arbour]

I am curious however, why does anyone care? We hold the scum of the Earth in gitmo. Not very nice people indeed, and yet certain people demand they have rights. Yet I've never seen those same people openly badmouth the other side that does, far, far worse.

Some of them were innocent and were only to the wrong time at the wrong place.

Some of them were abducted by the C.I.A. - another crime.

We have in Germany the case of 24 years old Murat Kurnaz. He was abducted by the C.I.A. and hold in Gunatnamo Bay more than four and a half year.

Than, the American gouvernment has decided that they have not on single proof - not even a single indication - that he has supported terrorism and have let him free - without an apology or an compensation.

He was totally innocent.

He was unlawful over four and a half years in that prison. Such things should be unimaginable in a constitutional state.

[Cpl Kendall]

I am curious however, why does anyone care? We hold the scum of the Earth in gitmo. Not very nice people indeed, and yet certain people demand they have rights. Yet I've never seen those same people openly badmouth the other side that does, far, far worse.

Because it is the right thing to do. Why should we increase suffering in the world when it is in our power to reduce it. As well as having signed international agreements that obligate us to do so. I also believe that we should work towards encouraging the other side to honouring the agreements, not that it makes the fact that the US isn't honouring them invalid. The Afghani's execute criminals in their local police stations, which is why the Canadian Forces detachments in the country are reluctanct to hand over Taliban militants to them as per the agreements with the Afghani government. The Iraqi Police and Military are riddiled with insurgents and commit numorous atrocities. So we should pressure their government to do more to stop it. Same with the Afghani's. The Taliban should be encouraged to operate within the Geneva Conventions, perhaps by giving them certain legitimacy in the international community. All of this should be considered and the fact that the other side is worse doesn't invalidate the fact that the US isn't living up to it's agreements.

In this case I fully agree with you that this is wrong. Simply taking any one someone hands over with out evidence is wrong.

Agreed. And I believe that most of these cases were later released but they still spent something like three years in detention.

[Who is like God arbour]

Correct

And if you follow them, you will be prosecuted

That's the lesson we have learned after - or rather in - the Second World War: To have followed orders is neither a compurgation nor an exculpation.

Of course that hasn't changed much. In several US Army cases in which soldiers have murdered Iraqi civilians, the soldiers have troted out the "I was only following orders" excuse. I can only assume that their not students of history, interestingly enough the Marine cases have not claimed this. They obviously have a higher caliber of recruits.

That's why many have the impressions that the American forces don't really prosecute such crimes. They do it when they can prosecute an enemy. But only seldom when the culprits are their own soldiers.

Insofar they support such crimes by ommission. It would be their duty to prosecute such crimes and if they would do it, there would be fewer crimes. But the American soldiers can trust that they aren't prosecuted for what they do as long as it doesn't cause an international scandal.

[Cpl Kendall]

That's why many have the impressions that the American forces don't really prosecute such crimes. They do it when they can prosecute an enemy. But only seldom when the culprits are their own soldiers.

Insofar they support such crimes by ommission. It would be their duty to prosecute such crimes and if they would do it, there would be fewer crimes. But the American soldiers can trust that they aren't prosecuted for what they do as long as it doesn't cause an international scandal.

Certainly there's the perception amongst the Canadian Forces community that the US military is lax on discipline and offences. They let things slide that we would punish harshly, even if an investigation showed that you were innocent of murder you'd likely get charged with "conduct unbecoming a service member" and heavily fined or reduced in rank.

[Narsil]

Guantanamo Bay is as illegal as the fucking War on Terror itself. Bush went to war without sufficient provocation or reason to do so and our dumbshit former prime minister served as his fucking stooge in the process.

The constant kidnapping and abduction of foreign nationals is unjustified and a crime in and of itself. Soon enough, Americans, the rest of the world will get pissed off. Murdering our journalists and kidnapping our citizens is a crime that your country is quite guilty of, CCN. But it seems that those who suddenly discover that they power and thus decide to form their own little empire are doomed to repeat history's mistakes. The Roman Empire, Napoleon, the British Empire, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and now the United States...

All of it done by the power of blind jingoist patriots like yourself. Go yank another time on your knob for America's imperialism while your people torture and burn and pillage and you turn a blind eye. It'll bite you in the arse eventually.

[2046]

Saddam wanted people to think he had nukes and other WMD facilities. Hence all the cloak-and-dagger BS he tried to use to hide the ones he didn't have. Well, it worked.

That sure backfired, dinnit?!?

It's the national equivalent of hinting that you have a gun, poking your finger out of a pocket, et cetera, and while being forced to get searched by a cop you keep acting like you're moving something from pocket to pocket.

Eventually the cop's just gonna take you down. Why act surprised and claim police brutality? Obviously 'cause you're a fool.

In the meantime, Saddam did have some remnant stockpiles of prohibited WMD-classed weapons. Not as many as our lefty intel services guys were claiming since the 90's, and which earlier presidents had been informed of but did nothing about, but then that's the problem with leaving liberals in charge of intelligence.

As for American soldiers, there has been a bad apple or three, and they have been or will be punished. However, there have been just as many Scott Thomas Beauchamp types who have tried to claim all sorts of evil that didn't exist, as well as assorted AP stringers with BS believed en masse by the media whereas absolutely no confirmatory data can be found by anyone on either side of the political spectrum.

The worst thing I'm aware of our guys ever doing as a matter of course is driving so fast on patrol through troublesome Iraqi streets to avoid ambushes that they frequently bump other cars out of the way, as shown in a YouTube clip a year or more ago. However, besides some damaged rear bumpers, I hardly consider that brutality.

The premise that American troops are going willy-nilly over there bashing innocent heads or slaughtering civilians wholesale is wrong and unsupportable. If that were the way things were then the extensive cultural sensitivity training, avoiding mosques, and so on would not occur. We'd be partying like it's Manila 1902, and you can't lie and say that's how things are, or even close, or even within sight of it.

Take your propaganda and blow it.

[2046]

illegal as the fucking War on Terror itself.

Aww, did we viowate your widdle waw? We're ever so sorry. I can't imagine why we would want to do that.

All of it done by the power of blind jingoist patriots like yourself. Go yank another time on your knob for America's imperialism while your people torture and burn and pillage and you turn a blind eye. It'll bite you in the arse eventually.

Man I love how loonies imagine the worst of Western civilization and always defend its enemies. Were it not for the freedoms won for you by 'evil American imperialism' you wouldn't have the opportunity to be such a moron.

Praytell, what do you think should be done? How would you seek to end the threat of Islamofascism if you were in charge, hmm? I mean, it's not like these people care if you're a loony leftist, a leftist, a centrist, a rightist, or a whacko right-winger. They've attacked us under Clinton, after all. They want to destroy western civilization . . . that is their stated goal, and they don't care what it takes to achieve it.

So what would you do, O Wise One? Never retaliate, never incarcerate? Capitulate and appease? Yeah, I'm sure *that* would work.

But no, I kid, I kid. Please, bestow upon us your wisdom.

[Narsil]

Aww, did we viowate your widdle waw? We're ever so sorry. I can't imagine why we would want to do that.

So America's above the law now? You seriously want to claim that the world should bow down and make exceptions just because your country has sufficient compensation issues that it has to spend more on military than healthcare for children.

Man I love how loonies imagine the worst of Western civilization and always defend its enemies. Were it not for the freedoms won for you by 'evil American imperialism' you wouldn't have the opportunity to be such a moron.

Erm... what freedoms that American Imperialism won for me? I'm British, and I've had a bill of rights longer than you've even had a fucking country, you ignorant twat. Late for every war, over-fed, over-sexed and over here it seems!

Praytell, what do you think should be done? How would you seek to end the threat of Islamofascism if you were in charge, hmm?

Quite easy; best offence is a good defence. Be unattackable or at least deal with attacks using sufficient intelligence to realise that Iraq was not behind 9/11. There was no fucking reason for invading Iraq, none whatsoever, it was an unprovoked assault on foreign soil.

That is illegal by international laws.

I mean, it's not like these people care if you're a loony leftist, a leftist, a centrist, a rightist, or a whacko right-winger. They've attacked us under Clinton, after all. They want to destroy western civilization . . . that is their stated goal, and they don't care what it takes to achieve it.

Yes, of course... how do they achieve it? We've got the technology that they haven't got. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't your dumb government actually have prior warning of the 9/11 attacks, a distinct bit of warning intelligence that was just ignored?

You could, y'know, have stopped the attacks.

So what would you do, O Wise One? Never retaliate, never incarcerate? Capitulate and appease? Yeah, I'm sure *that* would work.

Not destabilise the Middle East, for starters. Only incarcerate people who we have evidence for performing crimes. Don't torture people to gain information. And also remember that the mass-bombing of population centres is not a good way to spread PR.

Oh, and don't invade Iraq. There was no reason whatsoever to invade Iraq, and I hope your glorious King George the Dumbshit gets thrown into the fucking gulag, 'kay?

[Batman]

illegal as the fucking War on Terror itself.

http://www.radarheinrich.de/wtc-attack.jpg
Aww, did we viowate your widdle waw? We're ever so sorry. I can't imagine why we would want to do that.

Was there a point to that?

All of it done by the power of blind jingoist patriots like yourself. Go yank another time on your knob for America's imperialism while your people torture and burn and pillage and you turn a blind eye. It'll bite you in the arse eventually.

Man I love how loonies imagine the worst of Western civilization and always defend its enemies. Were it not for the freedoms won for you by 'evil American imperialism' you wouldn't have the opportunity to be such a moron.

Blatant lie.

Praytell, what do you think should be done?

NOT fuel their fires and encourage the ME people to flock to them by the truckloads perhaps? You know, like the US are currently doing?

How would you seek to end the threat of Islamofascism if you were in charge, hmm? I mean, it's not like these people care if you're a loony leftist, a leftist, a centrist, a rightist, or a whacko right-winger. They've attacked us under Clinton, after all. They want to destroy western civilization . . . that is their stated goal, and they don't care what it takes to achieve it.

So maybe you do NOT drive the people in the ME who WEREN'T islamofacist to begin with in their camp by bombing their country back into the stone age for no reason and then completely fuck up the reconstruction?

So what would you do, O Wise One? Never retaliate, never incarcerate?

Retaliation requires something to be done to you FIRST. Iraq DIDN'T. AQ did. But pacifying Afghanistan and getting rid of AQ turned out to be work so you chose to get out of there.

Capitulate and appease? Yeah, I'm sure *that* would work.
But no, I kid, I kid. Please, bestow upon us your wisdom.

Try to actually get the people responsible instead of randomly bombing and invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11? You know, like you STARTED to do in Afghanistan? NOT put random people in concentration camps and torture them IN DEFIANCE OF YOUR OWN LAWS? That sort of thing?

[sonofccn]

Because it is the right thing to do. Why should we increase suffering in the world when it is in our power to reduce it

I say thier are bigger, much more horrible problems we need to deal with then if some guys at gitmo are kept n lockup. I mean it would be differnt if we were you know doing the short of stuff Sadam did to his prisoners or something.

Some of them were innocent and were only to the wrong time at the wrong place.

Some of them were abducted by the C.I.A. - another crime.

I am of course against wrongful capture and would not be against more detailed background checks or what have you. I am just against the idea of either flooding civilian courts with the lot or sending them back to thier own country which will either treat them far worse then we will, or welcome them back as heros.

sonofccn,

the U.S. have written the U.N. charta. They have obligated themself to obey the charta.

And the charta says that the U.S. don't have the right to beginn a war.

We didn't. The other guys pushed us into a response. Something we wouldn't needed have done if the UN did it's job.

One can lament that the international law is bad or inefficient. But it is there and each state has to obey its rules. Otherwise we would have a global anarchy. And there are efforts to reform the U.N. But these efforts are blockaded by the U.S.

I'm curious. What reform did we block and for what reason? Besides who made the UN the world goverment? If they are bent on ruling the world then I demand an election.

And please tell me, who decides who is a brutal tyrant with dreams of global domination? Hussein didn't have dreams of global domination.

First off it was a scenrio as in I was assuming say a worst case. YOu feel that if you break the UN law and go to war for any reason you are now worse then a brutal mudering thug who lavished in palaces while people starved,were murderd, raped. I merely wanted to know if you would take that line to the limite that no matter how bad the result, no matter the suffering you would allow it to happen as long as the UN felt it had the problem in check. Now please answer the question.

Regarding Hussein I'm sure if he thought he had a ghost of a chance he would take it, what despot doesn't want to expand his domain, but yes he was content with dominating the region. Or did he start invading other countries out of bordem?

And he was a tyrant not worse than many other african tyrants which are actually friendly with the U.S.

I agreed we didn't invade because of his despotic ways.

know that the U.S. can't invade each country which is governed by a tyrant. But if they are really annoyed by tyrants, they would at least alter their diplomatic relations to them.

I'm sure they offer the US something we want/need like Saudia Arabia,keep the unpleasentness within the border and under wraps, and don't take an anti-american attitude. I'm not saying it's right, but the taht is life. I say we should work on the anti-american ones first, and leave our "allies" for last.

If you look at the yearly reports of amnesty international you will notice that there is nearly no state which isn't listed as a state which violates - deliberately or undeliberately - human rights.

Who decides where is the line?

For a very basic starter I consider any dictatorship evil, and I think should be a very good guidline. Using a Western nation as guid of evil/not evil should also be a good primer. Anyway I think we are badly veering off of the point. Sadam was bad, his removale from office and replacment with a democarcy is a good thing. Regardless of it wasn't the real reason we went in it was still a good thing.

How many are necessary to justify a war - in which maybe more people are killed than before?

Is each state authorised to decree such a line?

Since I have never claimed the US picks it's battles based upon such criteria,merely that we took advantage of having to clean the place up to spread freedom, what is your point?

[2046]

Aww, did we viowate your widdle waw? We're ever so sorry. I can't imagine why we would want to do that.

So America's above the law now?

Don't twist my words. My point is that there is no law of consequence which would, could, or should prevent or render illegal the War on Terror which you claim is illegal.

Of course the fact that the GWoT and Iraq War is legal in the United States is meaningless to you, I'm sure.

Also meaningless or irrelevant to you is the fact that UN, labelling Iraq a threat to international peace and security, noted that it was in violation of the 1991 ceasefire terms, and reaffirmed that all member states were authorized to use any necessary means with Iraq to uphold UN resolutions regarding Iraq and to restore international peace and security to the area.

Guess what? It's legal.

Erm... what freedoms that American Imperialism won for me? I'm British

"Adolf who?" indeed. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you're ignoring that, since you seem to have a pro-fascist (or anti-anti-fascist) mindset.

Be unattackable

Yeah, you guys did that realllll well back in the day. What was the UK's position on Northern Ireland? Trying to keep the terrorists down to a "manageable level of violence", as I recall? Lovely.

Even Israel, one of the most badassly-secure countries in the world, is not 'unattackable'.

To think that's possible exposes your naivete. Even in WW2 England, where everyone had to have 'papers' just like in a police state, there would've been no way to avoid the possibility of attack. Just consider the Maquis, who were in a similar boat. (The real Maquis, not the Trek ones.)

deal with attacks using sufficient intelligence to realise that Iraq was not behind 9/11.

Who's saying Iraq was behind 9/11? No one in authority has ever claimed that so far as I know. When Colin Powell went to the UN, he pointed out that contacts were known to exist between Saddam's government and Al Qaeda, and that Saddam was supporting Islamic Jihad folks. He was writing checks to the families of suicide bombers in and around Israel, and advertised this fact.

Ergo, Saddam supported terrorism, including radical Islam. But suddenly we're supposed to believe that he would never talk to Al Qaeda?

So let's see . . . a known sponsor of terror and supporter of radical Islam claiming to pursue WMDs and continually trying to fake out the international community about a nuclear program.

Yeah, this is a good combo. I guess in your mind that's all cool and we should've let him go on about his business.

There was no fucking reason for invading Iraq, none whatsoever, it was an unprovoked assault on foreign soil.

I shouldn't attribute the comment above to rabid Bush- and America-hatred . . . as they say, never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity . . . but you seem to be pretending that you know stuff and aren't stupid. So are you lying and/or deluding yourself via hatred, or just uninformed? Which is it?

We've got the technology that they haven't got.

What, nukes? Wait.

(And on the happy side for your America-hatred, if we stopped doing stuff against them (or had never started) they'd get them faster. Good show!)

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't your dumb government actually have prior warning of the 9/11 attacks, a distinct bit of warning intelligence that was just ignored?

It wasn't ignored, but in a pre-9/11 world it wasn't treated as it would be treated today. For one thing, we didn't have the government set up to deal with large-scale terrorist attacks . . . hence Homeland Security. We were still set up in a country-vs.-country Cold War way. It kept your sorry ass from speaking Russian (damned American imperialism, I know), but in regards to terrorism it had its disadvantages.

But even in the pre-Homeland Security days, there were always warnings and chatter and 'imminent threats', which you'd know if you knew anything. Hindsight about them is inevitably an exact science.

Yes, there'd been books and internal memos and all sorts of other things about hijacking planes and using them as guided missiles throughout the years.

But just like Britain's failed to stop attacks it had forewarning of, there are simply limits to what can be known in advance.

If at any point US officials had clearly known in advance what was coming, you can believe it would've been stopped.

If you don't believe that, then you're out of your damned mind.

You could, y'know, have stopped the attacks.

Ah, yes, because getting attacked was our fault, wasn't it? We "let it happen" or "were asking for it" or any number of other conspiracy-loon/America-hating theories.

What the hell is the matter with you people?

Not destabilise the Middle East, for starters.

Who's destablizing? We walked in and took the joint. A few Baath loyalists pulled some bullshit but other than that all was well. The problem came after Al Qaeda fomented Sunni/Shi'a hostilities.

Smart move, that one, but the Iraqis have largely caught on.

Only incarcerate people who we have evidence for performing crimes.

And who are these completely-random people we love to incarcerate? To my knowledge, we've done our damnedest to seek out only the guilty. We're cool like that.

Don't torture people to gain information.

Riiiiiight. 'Cause they'll talk to us openly and willingly, as long as we reach out a hand of friendship.

And here I thought *I* was the one who watched too much Star Trek.

And also remember that the mass-bombing of population centres is not a good way to spread PR.

What does WW2 have to do with this?

I hope your glorious King George the Dumbshit gets thrown into the fucking gulag, 'kay?

As long as terrorists and their enemy-within supporters get thrown under it first, I'm cool with that.

[2046]

Blatant lie.

I'll give you one free pass 'cause you're new here and don't know me. Don't do that again.

[sonofccn]

Murdering our journalists and kidnapping our citizens is a crime that your country is quite guilty of, CCN.

So were murding journalists now? Wow! So who did we kill, I'm curious.

But it seems that those who suddenly discover that they power and thus decide to form their own little empire are doomed to repeat history's mistakes.

Uh America doesn't have or want an Empire. If we did we would have taken one in 45, we had the perfect chance. Instead we rebuilt your nations up and safeguarded you against the guys who really did want an empire. Today again we rebuild the nations we invaded and are trying to get to the point were we can leave them alone. It's funny I can't think of any other nation that has been in our spot who has acted this nice. Anyone close pounded thier rivials flat and took thier holdings.

The Roman Empire, Napoleon, the British Empire, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and now the United States

Say here is a list of some of those now! Of course all these guys took someone elses land, said it was thiers and ruled it. Except for like the British empire who I beleive stuck a "my property" sticker on the lot, demanded a yearly tribute and gave the lot a soft rule as long as things didn't get out of hand. America however kinda rebuilds the nation,out of it's own pocket, let's it keeps all the precius resources they have, let's them elect thier own rulers and then wanders home. The worst we ever do is plauge them with walmarts and Mcdonalds. So at best you might say we are the British Empire on very lite and only in an unorthodox way.

All of it done by the power of blind jingoist patriots like yourself. Go yank another time on your knob for America's imperialism while your people torture and burn and pillage and you turn a blind eye. It'll bite you in the arse eventually.

As I said we are not conducting Imperialism, to do that we would need to keep what we take. We don't, well beyond land for military bases to protect the area from enemies but I beleive we pay for that.

Second as has been pointed out we do not run around burning, pillaging, and torturing. We're not saints, and we have made mistakes but we try and stop it and punish those responable when it happens. It's not nice to make such hasty or general accusations about people. Espcially when it's not true.

[Who is like God arbour]

International law don't knows "War against Terror".
War is an international affair.
But a terror organisation like al-Qaida is no international legal personality. It's is according to the law of nations impossible to wage a war against it.

The 9/11 was a crime - a dreadful and shocking crime - but nevertheless only a crime.

It was no casus belli.

And that's exactly what the U.N. has said:

• • • UN Security Council Resolution 1368 (2001)
      
      September 12, 2001
      
      The Security Council,
      
      Reaffirming the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations,
      
      Determined to combat by all means threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts,
      
      Recognizing the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in accordance with the Charter,
      
      1. Unequivocally condemns in the strongest terms the horrifying terrorist attacks which took place on 11 September 2001 in New York, Washington (D.C.) and Pennsylvania and regards such acts, like any act of international terrorism, as a threat to international peace and security;
      
      2. Expresses its deepest sympathy and condolences to the victims and their families and to the People and Government of the United States of America;
      
      3. Calls on all States to work together urgently to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these terrorist attacks and stresses that those responsible for aiding, supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these acts will be held accountable;
      
      4. Calls also on the international community to redouble their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts including by increased cooperation and full implementation of the relevant international anti-terrorist conventions and Security Council resolutions, in particular resolution 1269 of 19 October 1999;
      
      5. Expresses its readiness to take all necessary steps to respond to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, and to combat all forms of terrorism, in accordance with its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations;
      
      6. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

• • and

• • • UN Security Council Resolution 1373
      
      The Security Council,
      
      Reaffirming its resolutions 1269 (1999) of 19 October 1999 and 1368 (2001) of 12 September 2001,
      
      Reaffirming also its unequivocal condemnation of the terrorist attacks which took place in New York, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania on 11 September 2001, and expressing its determination to prevent all such acts,
      
      Reaffirming further that such acts, like any act of international terrorism, constitute a threat to international peace and security,
      
      Reaffirming the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence as recognized by the Charter of the United Nations as reiterated in resolution 1368 (2001),
      
      Reaffirming the need to combat by all means, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts,
      
      Deeply concerned by the increase, in various regions of the world, of acts of terrorism motivated by intolerance or extremism,
      
      Calling on States to work together urgently to prevent and suppress terrorist acts, including through increased cooperation and full implementation of the relevant international conventions relating to terrorism,
      
      Recognizing the need for States to complement international cooperation by taking additional measures to prevent and suppress, in their territories through all lawful means, the financing and preparation of any acts of terrorism,
      
      Reaffirming the principle established by the General Assembly in its declaration of October 1970 (resolution 2625 (XXV)) and reiterated by the Security Council in its resolution 1189 (1998) of 13 August 1998, namely that every State has the duty to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in terrorist acts in another State or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts,
      
      Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
      
      1. Decides that all States shall:
      
      1. Prevent and suppress the financing of terrorist acts;
      2. Criminalize the wilful provision or collection, by any means, directly or indirectly, of funds by their nationals or in their territories with the intention that the funds should be used, or in the knowledge that they are to be used, in order to carry out terrorist acts;
      3. Freeze without delay funds and other financial assets or economic resources of persons who commit, or attempt to commit, terrorist acts or participate in or facilitate the commission of terrorist acts; of entities owned or controlled directly or indirectly by such persons; and of persons and entities acting on behalf of, or at the direction of such persons and entities, including funds derived or generated from property owned or controlled directly or indirectly by such persons and associated persons and entities;
      4. Prohibit their nationals or any persons and entities within their territories from making any funds, financial assets or economic resources or financial or other related services available, directly or indirectly, for the benefit of persons who commit or attempt to commit or facilitate or participate in the commission of terrorist acts, of entities owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by such persons and of persons and entities acting on behalf of or at the direction of such persons;
      • 2. Decides also that all States shall:
        
        1. Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists;
        2. Take the necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist acts, including by provision of early warning to other States by exchange of information;
        3. Deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist acts, or provide safe havens;
        4. Prevent those who finance, plan, facilitate or commit terrorist acts from using their respective territories for those purposes against other States or their citizens;
        5. Ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or in supporting terrorist acts is brought to justice and ensure that, in addition to any other measures against them, such terrorist acts are established as serious criminal offences in domestic laws and regulations and that the punishment duly reflects the seriousness of such terrorist acts;
        6. Afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with criminal investigations or criminal proceedings relating to the financing or support of terrorist acts, including assistance in obtaining evidence in their possession necessary for the proceedings;
        7. Prevent the movement of terrorists or terrorist groups by effective border controls and controls on issuance of identity papers and travel documents, and through measures for preventing counterfeiting, forgery or fraudulent use of identity papers and travel documents;
      • • 3. Calls upon all States to:
          
          1. Find ways of intensifying and accelerating the exchange of operational information, especially regarding actions or movements of terrorist persons or networks; forged or falsified travel documents; traffic in arms, explosives or sensitive materials; use of communications technologies by terrorist groups; and the threat posed by the possession of weapons of mass destruction by terrorist groups;
          2. Exchange information in accordance with international and domestic law and cooperate on administrative and judicial matters to prevent the commission of terrorist acts;
          3. Cooperate, particularly through bilateral and multilateral arrangements and agreements, to prevent and suppress terrorist attacks and take action against perpetrators of such acts;
          4. Become parties as soon as possible to the relevant international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism, including the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism of 9 December 1999;
          5. Increase cooperation and fully implement the relevant international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism and Security Council resolutions 1269 (1999) and 1368 (2001);
          6. Take appropriate measures in conformity with the relevant provisions of national and international law, including international standards of human rights, before granting refugee status, for the purpose of ensuring that the asylum seeker has not planned, facilitated or participated in the commission of terrorist acts;
          7. Ensure, in conformity with international law, that refugee status is not abused by the perpetrators, organizers or facilitators of terrorist acts, and that claims of political motivation are not recognized as grounds for refusing requests for the extradition of alleged terrorists;
      • • • 4. Notes with concern the close connection between international terrorism and transnational organized crime, illicit drugs, money-laundering, illegal arms-trafficking, and illegal movement of nuclear, chemical, biological and other potentially deadly materials, and in this regard emphasizes the need to enhance coordination of efforts on national, subregional, regional and international levels in order to strengthen a global response to this serious challenge and threat to international security;
            5. Declares that acts, methods, and practices of terrorism are contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations and that knowingly financing, planning and inciting terrorist acts are also contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations;
            
            6. Decides to establish, in accordance with rule 28 of its provisional rules of procedure, a Committee of the Security Council, consisting of all the members of the Council, to monitor implementation of this resolution, with the assistance of appropriate expertise, and calls upon all States to report to the Committee, no later than 90 days from the date of adoption of this resolution and thereafter according to a timetable to be proposed by the Committee, on the steps they have taken to implement this resolution;
            
            7. Directs the Committee to delineate its tasks, submit a work programme within 30 days of the adoption of this resolution, and to consider the support it requires, in consultation with the Secretary-General;
            
            8. Expresses its determination to take all necessary steps in order to ensure the full implementation of this resolution, in accordance with its responsibilities under the Charter;
            
            9. Decides to remain seized of this matter.

There is no authorisation to wage a war.

Terror has to be treated like other transnational organized crimes...

The U.S. have agreed to both resolutions.

To attack Afghanistan was a violation of international laws.

And it was unnecessary.

The taliban has offered to hand over Osama Bin Laden to a third state, where his human rights would have been granted.

But the U.S. have wanted the unconditional extradition - without giving any proof that he was responsible for 9/11.

Even Germany or U.K. wouldn't have been allowed to hand over Osama Bin Laden to the U.S. in such a situation.

• • Article 3 European Convention on Human Rights:
    No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
    
    • • This article has been interpreted as prohibiting a state from extraditing an individual to another state if they are likely to suffer the death penalty.

• or

• • Article 19 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union:
    Protection in the event of removal, expulsion or extradition
    1. Collective expulsions are prohibited.
    2. No one may be removed, expelled or extradited to a State where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Considering that, can the fact that the Taliban haven't handed over Osama Bin Laden be enough reason to start a war?

And don't tell me that the U.S. has started the war because the Taliban were so cruel to their own people.

Shortly after the first attacks on Afghanistan, Bush has given the Taliban a SECOND CHANCE. If they unconditionally hand over Osama Bin Laden, the U.S. would stop the attacks. If the Taliban would have done that, they would still govern Afghanistan regardless how they treat their own people.

To defeat the Taliban has become the official war goal only after the U.S. has noticed that they aren't able to achieve their main goal.

Is it good that the U.S. has defeated the Taliban - in my opinion: yes.

But that's not the question.

The question is, if the war was justified.

And the ends don't justify the means.

• • And even if it would justify the means, many Afghan and Iraqi thinks that the situation now is worse than before.
    With the Taliban or Saddam Hussein they haven't had all their rights, but they had have security (as long as they don't take the respective government on.) Now they may have more rights - but they have to fear for their life more than before.
    And it is questionable if that will change in the near future.
    
    If the ends would justify the means, who decides, if an end is good or bad. Good for us and bad for them? Or what are the criteria?