Archive for the ‘NATO’ Category
Wednesday, February 27th, 2013
In the end, what difference does it make if John Brennan is confirmed as CIA Director by the Senate?
1. Well, for one thing, it may be the last chance for the Senate to get control of a failed foreign policy, and to actually put someone in who would complement Secretary of State John Kerry–as a member of a team that can get the nation’s foreign policy back on a track that might avoid further disasters, and maybe even lead to some successes.
Vali Nasr, the Dean of the Johns Hopkins School of International Affairs, is publishing a book, The Dispensable Nation, which is coming out in April and is already making waves as one of the first hard-hitting assessments of Obama’s foreign policy in his first term.. And the story isn’t pretty. Obama has led the nation into one failure after another, but liberals and Democrats have been unwilling to hold him accountable. The president, after all, perfectly represents the mood of the American people, by and large, who just want to get out of Bush’s wars and focus on domestic issues.
But the world exists, regardless of what the public in general want, and it keeps turning. It keeps spinning, in fact, in ways that often seem adverse to U.S. interests, and sometimes it seems even to be spinning out of control.
Brennan’s confirmation will tilt the balance of Obama’s foreign policy team back to the place where it has been for the last four years, with Obama mainly interested in killing terrorists by drones, while at the same time dragging his feet in other international crIsis arenas, such as Syria, Mali, or even Libya (until the French and the British dragged the U.S. into it, once Security Council authorzation was secured). Obama, in the end, is not interested in foreign policy, and doesn’t know how to conduct it. So he, and we, need a strong team.
2. Brennan is the High Priest of the war on terror, the Holy Warrior leading “The Last Crusade” against the Islamic terrorist infidels. And the strategy is simple–simply to kill them before they kill us. He is not plagued by self-doubt. Obama, in becoming a warrior himself, may have modeled himself on Brennan.
The only problem is that we may have been so busy fighting this war of targeted executions that we failed to notice, much less try to influence, strategic developments of enormous significance.
While Brennan was busy managing the “kill lists” and coordinating drone strikes on the infidels, Obama was giving up the ship to Mohamed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, offering Morsi support and not criticism when he launched his legal coup d’etat on November 22, abrogating the rule of law in the nascent democracy of Egypt. Morsi pushed through his illegitimate constitution, shutting down the Constitutional Court with brown-shirt tactics in the street.
What difference does that make?
Well, for one thing, al-Azhar university, which is the highest center of Islamic learning in the city which is the cultural capital of the Arab world, is now facing increasing pressure from the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists to assume a more fundamentalist approach to religious issues. These include those covered by the sharia, or Islamic law, now raised to a position of preeminence in Morsi’s Islamist constitution.
In effect, Brennan was leading Obama to go and try to kill terrorist leaders with drones, while the geotectonic plates of the Middle East were shifting in Egypt. As this was taking place, Obama and Hillary Clinton remained frozen, unable to act as events unfolded in Egypt. Yet the success of terrorism in the Middle East and North Africa is likely to be determined much more by developments at al-Azhar that by mid-level terrorists being killed by drones in Yemen
3. Then there are the moral issues. Torture. Extraordinary renditions to states which torture. Secret CIA “black prisons”, hidden from everyone, even the International Committee of the Red Cross. And targeted executions, including “signature” strikes against unknown individuals who evidenced a pattern of activities indicating they were terrorists. Any male over 14 killed in a drone attack was automatically deemed to be a terrorist, which was one way of keeping civilian casualties down–at least for those living within the White House bubble.
It is interesting how Brennan makes his legal arguments purporting to justify targeted killings. He paints a picture of the ideal case. The real cases, however, where unknown boys 14 years of age or older merit having their guts spattered in the sand, are cases we don’t know about, and whose justifying legal memoranda we will never see, because they are secret, indeed if in individual cases they exist at all. A legal opinion to support an execution would have to be individual, taking the specific facts of the case into account, and public, and presented to a competent judicial authority.
4. There are also issues of individual moral responsibility, and guilt, incurred by killing people outside the civilizing strucures of law, including international law.
Senators voting on Brennan face this moral responsibility, and potentially moral guilt from sanctioning actions which, in strictly legal terms, might be characterized as presumptive war crimes or other international crimes.
Like the Argentine politicians and generals who argued they faced the cancer of terrorism, Brennan’s supporters may find plausible arguments for going along with international crimes.
Then there is the argument that we should let bygones be bygones. Just turn the page, and move on. Of course that was not the position adopted by Justice Robert Jackson at Nuremberg.
If there is one book the Senators might want to read before voting on the Brennan nomination, it is “The Question of German Guilt”, by the famous German philosopher Karl Jaspers. Jaspers, in a series of lectures at the University of Heidelberg in 1948, articulated with elegant distinctions the kinds of criminal, political, moral and existential guilt Germans might feel or be accused of, as the blinders came off about what Hitler and the Nazis had done in the Third Reich. His analysis is exceedingly pertinent to “The Question of American Guilt”.
There are also a few films the Senators might want to watch before voting on the Brennan nomination. One of the best is “The Official Story”, winner of an Academy Award for Best Foreign Film in 1985, which addresses questions of individual moral responsibility in the Argentine context. “Judgment at Nuremberg”, with Spencer Tracy starring as Justice Jackson, would be another.
Given Brennan’s use of the “cancer” metaphor to describe terrorism’s advances, the Senators might benefit from watching “Z”, Costa-Gavras’ film about the right-wing coup in Greece. Then there is always “Missing”, a film starring Jack Lemon which in the context of Agusto Pinochet’s coup in Chile powerfully conveys the impact on individuals and families of those who abandon law in favor of pure force in their battle against the “cancer” of terrorism–as they see it.
5. We must bear witness to the truth and fight to uphold the rule of law. Just as the excesses of the “Palmer raids” in 1919, or the internment of Japanese citizens in World War II, came to be understood as great deviations from the rule of law, so too some day future historians will ask, “Did no one oppose these outrageous violations of fundamental rights, or seek to prevent them from being carried out?”
We and others, at least, must speak out–as loudly and effectively as we can–so that there is some evidence that people opposed these outrages upon the Constitution and the rule of law. The challenges we face are not as great as those faced by Sophie Scholl, who distributed pamphlets in Hitler”s Germany, for which she was executed, or others who faced the power of totalitarian states, yet nonetheless spoke out.
In seeking to answer the historians’ question, the vote of individual Senators on the Brennan nomination will be duly noted, and the judgment of history will be entered, and it will fall upon those who vote, or abstain or are absent, on the Brennan nomination in the Senate.
Did this or that Senator stand up for the rule of law, and vote against a confirmation that would send a clear signal to the world that America endorses holy warriors who have no regard for international law and human rights? Or not?
How did these Senators, on the dates of these votes, define the nature of American Democracy in 2013? That is the question historians will ask, and about which they will write.
The Trenchant Observer
Tags: "Missing", "The Official Story", Al-Azhar university, brennan confirmation, brennan senate vote, brennan will tilt the balance of the new foreign policy team, Egypt, Hillary Clinton, Historians will ask how senators voted, human rights, individual moral guilt, individual moral responsibility, International Law, jack lemon, John Brennan, John Kerry, Kark Jaspers, Mohamed Morsi, moral responsibility, Morsi 's coup d'etat, The cancer of terrorism, the question of german guilt, the rule of law, We must bear witness, Z
Posted in Afghanistan, Argentina, Barack Obama, Chile, CIA, Egypt, extrajudicial execution, extraordinary rendering, extraordinary rendition, France, History, human rights, Intelligence, International Law, Iraq, Libya, Mali, NATO, Pakistan, refoulement, self-defense, Somalia, State Department, State Department Legal Adviser, syria, targeted assassinations, targeted killings, Torture, U.N. Charter, U.N. Convention Against Torture, U.N. Security Council, U.N. Torture Convention, U.S. Congress, United States, use of force, war crimes | No Comments »
Wednesday, February 20th, 2013
There is nothing inevitable about international order.
The lessons of two world wars which informed the creation of the United Nations in 1945, and the maintenance of international peace and security for over 60 years, can be forgotten.
It is entirely conceivable that without decisive leadership from either Europe or the United States, the international order that has existed for many decades could start to wobble and even collapse.
And it is nearly impossible to conceive of such leadership emerging any time soon.
The rubble in Syria resembles the rubble in Berlin and the destruction in Germany in 1945, which occurred the last time the international order collapsed.
How bad could it get?
You could have wars like the one in Syria devastating countries in Africa, a nuclear attack on Los Angeles from North Korea, Iran with nuclear weapons and delivery systems within 5-10 years, and Israel surrounded by hostile Islamist states.
Things could fall apart.
Imagine a world without law, without international law governing the use of force which is generally observed and which states seek to uphold when it is violated.
Imagine true anarchy unleashed upon the world.
Imagine a world in which states use force without acknowledging they have acted, and without any obligation to publicly justify the legitimacy of their actions by reference to international law.
That is the direction in which we are heading.
The Trenchant Observer
Tags: Berlin in 1945, Egypt, Illegal use of force, international anarchy, international governing the use of force, Iran withnuclearweapons and delivery systems, Israel surrounded by hostileislamist states, los angeles, North Korea, The collapse of international order, The rubbleinsyria, therubble in berlin in 1945, world without international law
Posted in Afghanistan, Bahrain, Barack Obama, China, CIA, Crimes Against Humanity, debate over the efficacy of torture, Deutschland, Dictatorship, Egypt, extrajudicial execution, extraordinary rendering, extraordinary rendition, France, Germany, History, human rights, International Law, Iran, Israel, Ivory Coast, Lebanon, Libya, Mali, Middle East, Mossad, NATO, Nigeria, Nobel Lecture, Nobel Peace Prize, North Korea, Nuclear Proliferation, Pakistan, refoulement, Russia, self-defense, Somalia, State Department, State Department Legal Adviser, syria, Taliban, targeted assassinations, targeted killings, Torture, Tunisia, U.N. Charter, U.N. Security Council, united arab emirates, United Kingdom, United States, use of force, war crimes, Yemen | 1 Comment »
Wednesday, December 12th, 2012
This article was first published on September 1, 2012
The situation in Syria (is) unfolding “in front of our eyes”, with the regime deploying fighter jets against the people, in addition to heavy artillery and tanks, (Ahmet DAVUTOĞLU, the Foreign Minister of Turkey, told the Security Council on August 30). “How long are we going to sit and watch while an entire generation is being wiped out by random bombardment and deliberate mass targeting?” he asked. “If we do not act against such a crime against humanity happening in front of our eyes, we become accomplice to the crime,” he warned.
As we wrote following the August 30 meeting of the Security Council,
Everyone wants a ceasefire and an end to the killing. Few seem to have come to grips with the fact that the use of force will be required, outside the framework of the Security Council. There can be little doubt that, within the Security Council itself, there is not going to be any agreement to use force (or even to adopt strong economic sanctions) to bring al-Assad’s barbarism to a halt.
This will have to be done outside the framework of the Security Council. What is needed is for one or more countries, preferably but not necessarily acting as a coalition, to just act to set up the safe zones, and one or more accompanying no-fly zones if that is required as a result of al-Assad’s response.
–U.N. Security Council Meets: More “blah, blah, blah”, and no action—Obama’s debacle in Syria — Update #82 (August 30), August 31, 2012.
Such action should be accompanied by a justification under international law.
That justification should stress that the purpose of the action is to protect the population of Syria against the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The stated purpose of the operation should not be to overthrow the government of Bashar al-Assad, which is impermissible under international law. On the other hand, it would be permissible if an operation which protected the population against the commission of such crimes also facilitated a process that would bring to account those in Syria who are responsible for the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
While such fine distinctions may seem of little significance to those not versed in international law, they are in fact quite important in terms of limiting the precedent that would be set and obtaining support from other countries for such action, if not immediately at least over time.
For further discussion of legal justifications for intervention in Syria, see the following articles by The Trenchant Observer and the sources cited therein:
Continuing massacres in Syria, at Daraya and elsewhere; legal justification for military intervention — Obama’s Debacle in Syria —Update #78 (August 26), August 26, 2012
REPRISE: Humanitarian Intervention in Syria Without Security Council Authorization—Obama’s Debacle in Syria— Update #68 (July 25), July 25, 2012
Military Intervention to establish “no-kill zones” and humanitarian corridors—Syria Update #9 (February 25), February 24, 2012
The critical issue with respect to legal justifications for establishing and defending “safe zones” or “no-kill zones” in Syria, and the establishment of no-fly zones if required, is whether such action would violate Article 2 paragraph 4 of the United Nations Charter. Article 2(4) provides:
Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
…
(4) All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
On the face of it, the use of force to enforce a no-fly zone, or to defend a “safe zone” from assaults by Syria’s army, would involve an action against the “territorial integrity” of Syria. This is the horn of the dilemma.
Read literally, any permanent member of the Security Council could, through the use of its veto, block any military action by any state within the territory of another state, except in the case of an “armed attack”, no matter what the circumstances. In principle, such a veto could block any action by the civilized nations of the world to bring to a halt a war crimes and crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing such as occurred in Kosovo, or even genocide such as that conducted by Adolph Hitler during World War II.
Various interpretations of the Charter have proposed ways out of this logical box. One is the so-called “teleological” interpretation, by which Article 2(4) must be interpreted not literally, but rather in the light of the general purposes of the U.N. Charter and its other principles. Using this approach, one might justify the establishment of “no-kill zones” and “no-fly zones” in Syria.
The problem is that such “teleological” interpretations might open Pandora’s box, allowing multiple interpretations and opportunities for abuse by states intervening for their own purposes, e.g., to overthrow the al-Assad regime, while putting a humanitarian argument forward to justify their actions. Or, to cite another example, Israel and the United States might attempt to justify an attack on Iran to take out or greatly degrade its nuclear enrichment capabilities and what they believe is a secret program aimed at developing nuclear weapons, on the rationale that it is necessary to maintain international peace and security.
Alternatively, Israel and the United States could in principle attempt to justify an attack on Iran as an exercise of the right of individual and collective self-defense, an exception to the prohibition in Article 2(4) contained in Article 51 of the Charter, which provides:
Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
The key words in Article 51 are “if an armed attack occurs”, which has been interpreted as embodying the requirements that the armed attack have occurred or be imminent, immediate and leave no time for other actions. Exercise of the right of self-defense has traditionally been subject to the requirements “immediacy, necessity and proportionality”.
See Flavio Paioletti, “The 21st Century Challenges to Article 51,” e-International Relations, June 30, 2011.
The United States and other nations have not always acted within this tight legal framework. In 1999, for example, the United States and NATO conducted a unilateral bombing campaign against Serbia in a successful effort to get the government to stop its policy of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. Despite its humanitarian purpose, no legal justification was advanced by the U.S. Department of State for the action.
In Iraq, the United States sought to justify its 2003 invasion of that country both on the basis of previous Security Council resolutions and on the basis of the “right” advanced by the Bush administration to “pre-emptive self defense”.
The concern of states and legal scholars from around the world is that by allowing “teleological” interpretations of Article 2(4) or expansive interpretations of what constitutes “an armed attack” creating a right of individual and collective self-defense, such interpretations would open the door to increasingly expansive assertions of the right to use force across international frontiers. It is significant that in the case of Kosovo, no legal justification was offered.
So, we are left with the legal regime brilliantly defined by the founders of the United Nations to establish rules and mechanisms to effectively regulate the international use of force, on the one hand, and the fact that as the populations of more and more countries seek to demand respect for their fundamental human rights, and the right to participate in government, existing dictorships may resort to the appalling use of terror and crimes against humanity and war crimes in defending their hold on power, as has happened recently in Libya and Syria.
Unlike domestic laws and the constitution in the U.S., the United Nations Charter and other international agreements are subject to rules of strict interpretation, as established in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. This makes sense, as nations are generally extremely wary of ceding authority to international institutions, and rules of strict interpretation are necessary in order to secure participation in international treaties. While the United Nations Charter is something of a special case, since very few countries would consider withdrawal from the organization, acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice remains voluntary, a fact which underlines the continuing importance of rules of strict interpretation.
Caught in this logical box, are we to stand idly by as tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of human beings are slaughtered, whenever a permanent member of the Security Council exercises a veto?
The United Nations Charter is 67 years old. It has survived the Korean war, the war in Vietnam, the invasions of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Afghanistan (1980), the Balkan wars, genocide in Rwanda and the Sudan, and the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
The fundamental question is whether states should: (1) simply act outside the charter when they feel compelled to do so for humanitarian reasons (e.g., Kosovo); (2) justify their actions on legal grounds, preferably as taken with the support of regional organizations (e.g., NATO) or a broad coalition of nations; or (3) do nothing in the face of acts of barbarism such as those being committed in Syria.
In the case of Kosovo, Russia brought a resolution to a vote in the Security Council which condemned the bombing of Serbia, but the resolution was defeated 12-3.
Perhaps that is as close to 100% compliance with the Charter norms as we can get in the world today.
The ultimate choice is between undertaking effective action that will halt the atrocities in Syria, or sticking with our current policies.
In the case of the U.S., the current policy is carefully calibrated to comply with the requirements on the use of force laid down by the International Court of Justice in 1986 in the Nicaragua case. In that case, the Court held that direction and control of rebel groups was required in order for assistance to rebel groups to constitute an armed attack, thereby triggering a right of individual or collective self defense.
If the decision is made to establish safe zones and associated no-fly zones (if necessary), a final choice is whether to provide some legal justification for such action, or to follow the example of the United States in the NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999, and offer none.
While the choice here is not entirely clear, a strong argument can be made for advancing a highly restrictive legal justification, narrowly tailored to the circumstances in the Syrian case, together with the support of a regional body such as NATO, and undertaken only as a provisional measure of protection until such time as the Security Council can act effectively to protect the population of Syria from the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Russia may bring a resolution condemning such action in the Security Council. Assuming the resolution is defeated by a healthy margin, as occurred in the case of Kosovo, this may be the closest to compliance with the Charter as is possible today.
The Trenchant Observer
Tags: Article 2, Article 2(4), Artículo 2 párrafo 4, Assad, bachar al-assad, Bashar al-Assad, Carta das Nacões Unidas, Carta de las Naciones Unidas, Charte des Nations Unies, China, derecho internacional, direito internacional, droit international, e-International Relations, Flavio Paioletti, humanitarian intervention, il uman il-mutahida, International Law, intervenção militar, Intervention militaire, interventionsverbot, justificação jurídica, justificación jurídica, justificacion juridique, Legal Justications for military intervention in Syria, Legal Justififcation, Militarintervention, military intervention, paragraphe 4, progibición, prohibicão, prohibition of the use of force, Russia, Siria, surria, Syien, syria, Syrie, U.N. Charter, United States, uso de forza, uso de fuerza, Völkerrecht
Posted in Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Barack Obama, China, CIA, Crimes Against Humanity, extrajudicial execution, France, Germany, Guatemala, History, human rights, human rights reports, Intelligence, internal supporters of human rights, International Law, kosovo, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, NATO, Pakistan, Portugal, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, self-defense, Serbia, South Africa, State Department, State Department Legal Adviser, syria, targeted assassinations, targeted killings, Togo, Torture, Turkey, U.N. Charter, U.N. Security Council, U.S. Congress, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, United Kingdom, United States, use of force, war crimes, Yemen | No Comments »
Thursday, November 22nd, 2012
DRAFT–developing
Intelligence agencies use deception as a standard operating procedure. CIA operations are by nature secret, and intelligence agencies go to great lenghts to keep them secret, even if their existence sometimes may be leaked if it suits the president’s purposes.
It should come as no surprise, therefore, that the reporting by American reporters on the Benghazi attacks has been mostly based on off-the-record interviews with administration officials, and that the latter have presented their revelations and confirmations in ways which pursue their own objectives, on background, usually on deep background where even the agency of the source is not revealed. Such reporters seem quite content to simply pass on the latest “revelations”, without vetting them against other known facts and statements. Often, it does not add up.
The constantly evolving narrative of the CIA “talking points” used by Susan Rice on the Sunday talk shows on September 16 illustrates the confusion of such spinning by intelligence officials whose modus operandi is deception and secrecy. First we learn that the so-called talking points were drafted by the CIA. Then we learn they were changed by someone, but all the intelligence chiefs testified that they didn’t know by whom. Then we learn that the CIA draft was not changed by the intelligence agencies, but sent up to the NSC Deputies Committee. Wednesday we learn that the DNI now says that they edited the talking points, as did other agencies.
None of the edits were necessary for national security reasons, in the original opinion of the CIA. Intelligence officials on background justify their edits on the grounds that leaving in the references to al-Queda affiliates and sympathizers would have revealed methods and sources, thereby revealing methods and sources.
On Wedneday, Susan Rice reiterates that she only told the talk shows what was in the talking points. The media fail to point out that she also included references in her statements on those shows to “armed individuals” and “small groups of armed individuals” in an effort to stress the disorganized nature of the attack, when such presumably classified information was not in her “talking points”.
The first duty of a journalist used to be to get to the bottom of things, to sort out all the conflicting evidence and tell the audience what it means, not simply to pass it on. The Washington press corps has, by and large, failed to get to the bottom of things. That is why, two months and 11 days after the attacks at Benghazi, we the public still don’t know for sure exactly what happened, or exactly what the CIA black operation was doing in Benghazi.
Were they providing arms to the Syrian rebels?
The press has failed, spectacularly, to provide an answer to this question, which lies at the heart of the Benghazi affair.They have done so, presumably, because they were asked to withhold those details by the Obama administration’s intelligence agencies. With very few and limited exceptions, the fact that they have published no further details about the CIA’s black operation in Benghazi demonstrates the extent to which the Washington press corps has become a servile instrument of the Obama administration’s foreign policy.
The fact that the administration was able to control the media’s reporting of the CIA’s black operation in Benghazi should be a matter of extraordinary concern to citizens of a free country who are utterly dependent on a free press, and a free press which to be meaningful must aggressively seek out and publish the facts even when the government wants to keep them secret.
Indeed, more broadly, there has been precious little fundamental criticism of Obama’s foreign policies and the details and quality of their implementation.
What were the CIA’s operatives doing in Benghazi?
The answer is of overriding importance for the development and implementation of an effective U.S. foreign policy. From a policy perspective, there is a fundamental question of whether the nation’s interests have been served by Obama’s covert operations relating to Syria, or would have been better served by an open and public policy of support for those forces in Syria who are seeking to bring to an end al-assad’s barbarism, involving widespread commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Such attacks have not been seen in a modern state at least since the Balkan wars of the 1990′s, and possibly since the atrocities of the German Nazi state of Adolph Hitler before and during World War II.
Some 40,000 Syrians have died as a result of the inaction of the international community, and the failure of leadership of the Obama administration. Obama has even blocked the efforts of other states to bring force to bear to halt Bashar al-Assad’s assault on the civilization and people of Syria.
Quite simply, the United States has failed to lead, and whatever beneficial results it has achieved through covert operations have come at a heavy cost. The Saudi defense minister is reportedly playing a key role in coordinating the covert supply of weapons to the Syrian opposition, just as he did with respect to supplying the insurgents in Afghanistan in the 1980′s following the Soviet invasion of that country, when he was ambassador to Washington. We are still dealing with the “blowback” from that operation, as the war in Afghanistan grinds on in its 11th year.
It should come as no surprise that Islamist groups are benefitting from this arrangement at the expense of more secular groups. This is a direct result of the U.S. pursuit of a covert policy in Syria, instead of an open policy that might have led to early confrontation with al-Assad and the saving of tens of thousands of lives.
The spill-over effects of this covert war are being felt throughout the region. Hamas was emboldened by the visit of the leader of Qatar in recent weeks. A looming confrontation between Syria and Turkey, with NATO involvement in supplying Patriot missiles to Turkey while Russia vehemently objects, demonstrations in Jordan including calls for the end of the monarchy, and a continuing threat against the independence of Lebanon, are only some of the knock-on effects of Obama’s covert policy and lack of leadership on Syria. In the
The foreign policy of the United States towards Syria should be debated in public, and carried out in public.
The press has a crtical role to play in guaranteeing that this occurs. Its job is to search out the truth and to report it to its readers and its electronic audience. That truth, and only that truth, can guide the nation in choosing a wise and effective foreign policy.
The Trenchant Observer
Tags: armed individuals small groups of armed individuals, attacks on bengazi, Barack Obama, Bashar al-Assad, Benghazi, cia black operation in Benghazi, cia operatives in benghazi, cia talkking points, David Petraeus, duty of journalkists, duty of reporters, duty of the press, duty to get to the bottom of things, evotlution of talking points narrative, Free press, other classified information, revelaing methods and sources, supply of weapons to syria from benghazi, susan rice, syria, talking points, talking points narrative, U.S. press, U.S. reporters
Posted in Afghanistan, Barack Obama, CIA, coverage of foreign events, Crimes Against Humanity, Dimming Vision of World Affairs, Egypt, electronic curtain, extrajudicial execution, foreign correspondents, foreign news coverage, freedom of speech, Intelligence, internal supporters of human rights, Iran, Israel, kosovo, Lebanon, Libya, Middle East, NATO, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, State Department, State Department Legal Adviser, syria, Taliban, targeted assassinations, targeted killings, television, Torture, Turkey, U.N. Security Council, U.S Foreign Relations, U.S. Congress, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, U.S. news coverage, United States, use of force, war crimes | No Comments »
Sunday, October 21st, 2012
Developing
Questions for Romney and Obama at the third presidential debate on foreign policy, to be held on October 22
1. Will you push for Senate ratification of the American Convention on Human Rights? Why or why not?
2. Will you push for U.S. ratification of the Statute of the International Criminal Court? Why or why not?r
3. Will you reverse the Reagan administration’s withdrawal from the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice? Why or why not?
4. Will you work energetically with other countries to establish new norms or clarifications of existing norms regulating the use of force by drones within the framework of international law and the United Nations Charter? Why or why not?
5. Will you block or suspend the adoption of Most-Favored-Nation treatment for Russian goods and services, and other trade benefits, until Russia agrees to take effective action on Syria in the U.N. Security Council? Or do you believe the U.S. should do business as usual with Russia (and China) despite their blocking of Security Council actions to control the ongoing commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity by the Syrian government?
6. Will you energetically push for China and other concerned states to commit to refer any unsettled territorial disputes in the South China Sea, or elsewhere, to the International Court of Justice for binding decision? Why or why not?
7. For background to assist in formulating the critical questions on the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi and the American response, see
The Trenchant Observer, “New details on Benghazi attack on consulate, American response,” October 13, 2012
The Trenchant Observer, “No time for cowboys: U.S. preparation for reprisals against Libyan targets,” October 3, 2012
The Trenchant Observer, ,”U.S. Ambassador to Libya murdered during assault on American consulate in Benghazi,” September 12, 2012
8. Will you lead efforts with others to supply arms and, if necessary, use air strikes or other military force to halt the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Syria? Why or why not?
The Trenchant Observer
Tags: american convention on human rights, Benghazi, benghazi attack, christopher stevens, Compulsory jurisdiction of the World Court, Foreign policy questions for Obama and Romney, ICC, ICJ, International Court of Justice, International Criminal Court, Libya, no time for cowboys, Obama and international law, october 22, rome statute, Romney and international law, Statute of the Icc, Statute of the ICJ, syria, third presidential debate, use of force
Posted in Barack Obama, CIA, Crimes Against Humanity, human rights, Intelligence, International Law, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Mitt Romney, NATO, Russia, State Department, State Department Legal Adviser, syria, Torture, Turkey, U.N. Charter, U.N. Security Council, U.S Foreign Relations, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, United States, use of force, war crimes | No Comments »
Thursday, October 11th, 2012
Originally published July 28, 2012
The Opening of the XXX Olympic Games
It was a poignant moment, as world leaders gathered in London last night (July 27) for the opening of the XXX Olympic Games, with the performance of an extraordinary spectacle, in which at one point five Olympic rings appeared suspended in the heavens over the Olympic Stadium. Over a billion people were said to have watched the opening ceremonies on television.
Here, in the very heart of the democratic civilizations of Europe, the Olympic ideal shone brightly.
In ancient Greece, the Olympic Games were preceded by a “Sacred Truce” among the warring city-states, in which athletes were guaranteed safe passage to and from the games, and all fighting was to be halted for a period of one month. This period was eventually extended to allow the athletes and visitors to return home.
The games were held every four years from 776 BC to 393 AD, when they were abolished by the Christian Byzantine Emperor Theodosius I. The ancient Olympic Games lasted for 1170 years. The Modern Olympic Games were initiated in 1896, and have been held every four years or more often since then except for 1916, 1940 and 1944.
–”Brief History of the Olympic Games,” NOSTOS (Hellenic Information Society, UK).
Importantly, the Olympic Games today stand as a symbol for humanity’s goal of one day achieving universal peace. The alternative, it seems, is either the goal of endless war, or the resignation that goes with the sense of helplessness we feel when we reject the goal of peace.
The Battle for Aleppo, and the Response of the World
Meanwhile, in Aleppo in Syria, a country where the international community and the Security Council have been unable to reach agreement to act effectively to halt the atrocities of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, the portents of death and destruction were all too palpable yesterday and today, as the regime’s troops, tanks, artillery, helicopters and war planes began a concerted assault on the lightly armed rebels of the Syrian Liberation Army, in what a pro-Assad Damascus newspaper termed “the Mother of all Battles”.
Today, on Saturday, July 28, the battle was joined in earnest.
For news of recent developments on the ground in Syria, see
Luke Harding (in Anadan, on the Aleppo front line), “Syrian rebels near Aleppo: ‘We are besieging Assad’s army’; Regime forces have been pulverising rebel-held districts using artillery and helicopter gunships. But the rebels are upbeat,” The Guardian, July 28, 2012 (11:35 EDT).
Damien McElroy (in Aleppo), “Badly armed rebels face tanks as Syria’s mother of all battles begins,” The Telegraph, July 28, 2012 (6:57PM BST).
Álvaro de Cózar (Special Correspondent in Marea), “El Ejército sirio avanza para tomar Alepo; Las tropas de El Asad atacan con bombas y tanques los barrios en manos rebeldes; Las líneas de teléfono y el suministro de energía han sido cortados, El País, 28 Julio 2012 (23:45 CET).
Kareem Fahim and Ellen Barry, “Syrian Military Intensifies Assault on Rebels in Aleppo,” New York Times, July 28, 2012
***
Unfortunately, Americans accessing the Internet do not find it easy to gain a sense of what is actually taking place on the ground, due to “The Filter Bubble” which prevents most U.S. observers on the Internet from seeing the search results for newspapers outside of their own country (including, e.g., British and other newspapers which have correspondents on the ground in Syria). To get around The Filter Bubble, see the directions in the bottom right-hand column on the right on our Home Page, or go here.
Thus, as the world turns its attention to the joyful spectacle of athletes from countries throughout the world competing on the basis of individual merit, as humanity comes together for its quadrennial celebration of the richness and diversity of the human family, the people in Aleppo and in Syria are left to face the absolute terror and barbarism of the Bashar al-Assad regime, alone.
Russia and China, along with the Syrian regime, are clearly to blame for this state of affairs, and populations who follow international affairs throughout the world are aware of the role they have have played in thwarting effective U.N. Security Council action. Memories of how they have backed the murderous regime of al-Assad are likely to be long indeed in the Middle East, and also in the democracies of the world.
The United States and other Western countries warn of an impending massacre in Aleppo, as if anyone but they themselves could save the day.
It is a new role for Americans: Eyewitness News reporters without an inkling of any sense of moral responsibility that might lead them to act. In this role, they are following the lead of their president.
The Americans, the Europeans, top U.N. officials and others loudly deplore the lamentable state of affairs in Syria in general, and the unfolding of the “mother of all battles” in Aleppo, in particular.
Leaderless, they stand helpless and paralyzed before the terror and barbarism of al-Assad.
They provide countless declarations of moral outrage, and call for the nations of the world to increase their “pressure” on the al-Assad regime.
The “pressure” of which they speak is a “pressure” of words, of plaintive moral appeals directed to war criminals whose moral depravity is beyond dispute. Or perhaps the “pressure” may even consist of voluntary economic sanctions, imposed by different countries outside the framework of the U.N. Security Council, whose impact is uncertain and in any event will take much time.
Neither words nor economic sanctions, however, will stop al-Assad’s armies.
These leaders are at once appalled by the terror, the barbarism, the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity before their very eyes, and caught in their own moral cowardice, impotent, helpless, with verbal reproaches the only weapons they have the courage to wield. Paralyzed by their own cowardice, they will not act—not effectively, not in time to save the thousands of additional deaths that the grinding gears of war portend to claim, and of which they so earnestly warn.
Enough with Words!
These leaders can all do the world one big favor: Stop denouncing al-Assad’s atrocities, at least until they are willing to do something really effective to bring them to a halt.
With their moral energies thus freed, they can pay close attention to the facts on the ground, to what is actually happening to thousands of human beings in the maw of war, and then they can seek quiet solace in their churches, their synagogues, their mosques, and the other spiritual refuges in which they must, as individual human beings, come to terms with what they have seen, and what they have not done.
Enough with words!
Enough with the self-absolving declarations these leaders offer to the world, and to themselves, so they can sleep at night, knowing they were present at Srebrenice, present at Auschwitz, present in Rwanda, over a very long period of time, and did nothing.
President Theodore Roosevelt, Recipient of the 1907 Nobel Peace Prize, on Words and Deeds
As for President Obama, who reportedly likes to think of himself as emulating the great American presidents, the words of President Theodore Roosevelt, recipient of the 1907 Nobel Peace Prize, come to mind. Roosevelt declared:
“International Peace”
…
We must ever bear in mind that the great end in view is righteousness, justice as between man and man, nation and nation, the chance to lead our lives on a somewhat higher level, with a broader spirit of brotherly goodwill one for another. Peace is generally good in itself, but it is never the highest good unless it comes as the handmaid of righteousness; and it becomes a very evil thing if it serves merely as a mask for cowardice and sloth, or as an instrument to further the ends of despotism or anarchy. We despise and abhor the bully, the brawler, the oppressor, whether in private or public life, but we despise no less the coward and the voluptuary. No man is worth calling a man who will not fight rather than submit to infamy or see those that are dear to him suffer wrong. No nation deserves to exist if it permits itself to lose the stern and virile virtues; and this without regard to whether the loss is due to the growth of a heartless and all-absorbing commercialism, to prolonged indulgence in luxury and soft, effortless ease, or to the deification of a warped and twisted sentimentality.
Moreover, and above all, let us remember that words count only when they give expression to deeds, or are to be translated into them (emphasis added). The leaders of the Red Terror2 prattled of peace while they steeped their hands in the blood of the innocent; and many a tyrant has called it peace when he has scourged honest protest into silence. Our words must be judged by our deeds; and in striving for a lofty ideal we must use practical methods; and if we cannot attain all at one leap, we must advance towards it step by step, reasonably content so long as we do actually make some progress in the right direction.
[Footnote] 2. The “Terror” is a term characterizing the conduct of power in revolutionary France by the second committee of Public Safety (September, 1793-July, 1794), sometimes identified as the “Red Terror” to distinguish it from the short-lived “White Terror”, which was an effort by the Royalists in 1795 to destroy the Revolution.
–Theodore Roosevelt, 1907 Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech, delivered May 5, 1910.
President Obama and the other leaders of the world would do well to take these words to heart, today, and every day hereafter until they find the courage to take effective action to halt the barbarism and the terror in Syria.
The Trenchant Observer
observer@trenchantobserver.com
www.twitter.com/trenchantobserv
For links to other articles by The Trenchant Observer, click on the title at the top of this page to go to the home page, and then use the “Search” Box or consult the information in the bottom right hand corner of the home page. The Articles on Syria page can also be found here. The Articles on Targeted Killings page can also be found here.
Tags: al-Assad, al-Watan, Alep, Alepo, Aleppo, Álvaro de Cózar, Anadan, articles on syria page, atrocities, barbarism, Crimes Against Humanity, Damien McElroy, Debacle in Syria, El País, Ellen Barry, Kareem Fahim, Luke Harding, New York Times, Nobel Lecture, Nobel Peace Prize, NOSTOS, Obama, Olympic Games, Siria, syria, Syrie, Syrien, the Battle for Aleppo, the filter bubble, The Guardian, the mother of all battles, the response of the world, the sacred truce, tHE tELEGRAPH, the Washington Post, theodore roosevelt, war crimes, words and deeds
Posted in Azerbaijan, Barack Obama, China, Crimes Against Humanity, Egypt, extrajudicial execution, France, Germany, Guatemala, History, human rights, Intelligence, internal supporters of human rights, International Law, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, NATO, Nigeria, Portugal, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, self-defense, South Africa, State Department, State Department Legal Adviser, syria, Togo, Torture, Tunisia, U.N. Charter, U.N. Convention Against Torture, U.N. Security Council, U.N. Torture Convention, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, United Kingdom, United States, use of force, war crimes | No Comments »
Friday, October 5th, 2012
The U.N. Security Council issued a presidential statement on October 4 condemning the shelling of a Turkish town by Syrian forces. The statement has no legal force. The text of the press statement (U.N. Doc. SC/10783) is reproduced below:
***
4 October 2012
Security Council
SC/10783
Security Council Press Statement on Shelling of Turkish Town by Syrian Forces
The following Security Council press statement was issued today by Council President Gert Rosenthal (Guatemala):
The members of the Security Council condemned in the strongest terms the shelling by the Syrian armed forces of the Turkish town of Akcakale, which resulted in the deaths of five civilians, all of whom were women and children, as well as a number of injuries. The members of the Security Council expressed their sincere condolences to the families of the victims and to the Government and people of Turkey.
The members of the Security Council underscored that this incident highlighted the grave impact the crisis in Syria has on the security of its neighbours and on regional peace and stability. The members of the Council demanded that such violations of international law stop immediately and are not repeated. The members of the Security Council called on the Syrian Government to fully respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of its neighbours.
The members of the Security Council called for restraint.
***
Syria as “the Tinderbox of the Middle East”, Turkey, and NATO
Should the attacks from Syria persist, or Turkey become embroiled in hostilities in which the cause can be characterized as “an armed attack” by Syria (by one or more large attacks, or possibly by a continuing series of lesser attacks), Turkey would be entitled to invoke the right of self-defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter in taking military action within Syria. It could also trigger the duty of NATO members to come to the assistance of Turkey in exercising the right of collective self-defense under the terms of Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty (1949), which establishes:
Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.
Syria has become the tinderbox of the Middle East, in a situation in the region somewhat reminiscent of that existing in the Balkans in the summer of 1914.
See Raniah Salloum (Beirut), “Syrische Grenzkonflikte:
Angst vor dem Flächenbrand, Der Spiegel, 5 Oktober 2012.
A raging fire is burning in Syria, which despite the hopes of the United States and leading European powers, does not appear likely to burn itself out. The longer it burns, unchecked, the greater the likelihood that it will spread and produce a general conflagration in the region.
The Trenchant Observer
Tags: 4 october 2012, Akcakale, armed attack, Article 5, Article 51, border exchanges, condemnation, der spiegel, general conflagration in the region, Gert Rosenthal, Guatemala, North Atlantic Treaty, press statement, ragin fire in syria, Raniah Salloum, right of individual or collective self-defense, SC/10783, shellinbg by Syria, shelling of Turkey, Siria, syria as the tinderbox of the middle east, Syrie, Syrien, threat of war, UN Security Council
Posted in Barack Obama, China, International Law, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Middle East, NATO, Russia, self-defense, Serbia, State Department Legal Adviser, syria, Turkey, U.N. Charter, U.N. Security Council, U.S. Military, United States, use of force | No Comments »
Tuesday, October 2nd, 2012
Excerpt
Pope Benedict’s former butler, on trial for stealing papal documents, told a Vatican court on Tuesday that during the first weeks of his detention he was held in an isolation room so small he couldn’t stretch out his arms and with light on constantly.
Domenico Giani, the head of the Vatican police, issued a statement saying the room conformed to “standards used by other countries in similar situations”.
The Case of Paolo Gabriele, the Pope’s Butler
From the Vatican, we receive news that the impact of “standards used by other countries in similar situations” include holding suspects presumed to be innocent in sooms so small they cannot extend their arms. Reuters reports,
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) – Pope Benedict’s former butler, on trial for stealing papal documents, told a Vatican court on Tuesday that during the first weeks of his detention he was held in an isolation room so small he couldn’t stretch out his arms and with light on constantly.
Paolo Gabriele said that during those weeks he had suffered damage to his eyesight and had felt under psychological pressure. On the first night in the room in the Vatican’s police station, “even a pillow was denied me”, he said.
A judge ordered an investigation of the police force after Gabriele, speaking confidently and smiling often, made the assertions on the second day of a trial that has embarrassed the Vatican.
…
Gabriele, who is accused of passing to a journalist documents alleging corruption in the Vatican, pleaded not guilty to charges of aggravated theft.
…
Asked by his lawyer Cristiana Arru if it was true that for the first weeks after his arrest on May 23 he was held in a room so narrow he could not stretch out his arms, he said: “Yes.”
In answer to a question by the judge, Gabriele said:
“For the first 15-20 days the light was on 24 hours a day and there was no switch. As a result my eyesight was damaged.”
He said he was subjected to what he and his lawyer called psychological pressure.
…
Domenico Giani, the head of the Vatican police, issued a statement saying the room conformed to “standards used by other countries in similar situations”.
It said the light had been kept on for general security reason, to keep Gabriele from harming himself and that the prisoner had been given an eye mask. He denied that Gabriele had not been given a pillow and said Gabriele was later moved to a larger room in the Vatican police station.
–Reuters, “Vatican Orders Investigation of Police for Abuse of Butler After Arrest”, New York Times, October 2, 2012.
“Standards Used by Other Countires in Similar Circumstances”
In 1764, Cesare Beccaria wrote in his seminal work entitled, Of Crimes and Punishments (published in Italian), the following words regarding torture:
Of Torture.
The torture of a criminal during the course of his trial is a cruelty consecrated by custom in most nations. It is used with an intent either to make him confess his crime, or to explain some contradictions into which he had been led during his examination, or discover his accomplices, or for some kind of metaphysical and incomprehensible purgation of infamy, or, finally, in order to discover other crimes of which he is not accused, but of which he may be guilty.
No man can be judged a criminal until he be found guilty; nor can society take from him the public protection until it have been proved that he has violated the conditions on which it was granted. What right, then, but that of power, can authorise the punishment of a citizen so long as there remains any doubt of his guilt? This dilemma is frequent. Either he is guilty, or not guilty. If guilty, he should only suffer the punishment ordained by the laws, and torture becomes useless, as his confession is unnecessary, if he be not guilty, you torture the innocent; for, in the eye of the law, every man is innocent whose crime has not been proved. Besides, it is confounding all relations to expect that a man should be both the accuser and accused; and that pain should be the test of truth, as if truth resided in the muscles and fibres of a wretch in torture. By this method the robust will escape, and the feeble be condemned. These are the inconveniences of this pretended test of truth, worthy only of a cannibal, and which the Romans, in many respects barbarous, and whose savage virtue has been too much admired, reserved for the slaves alone.
–Cesare Beccaria, Of Crimes and Punishments (1764), Chapter “On Torture”.
The presumption of innocence is well-established in the constitutions of the world and international human rights law including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966, in force 1976).
Article 14(2) of the Covenant provides: “Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.”
Article of 1(1) of the U.N. Convention Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984, in force 1987) defines “torture” as follows:
Article 1
1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term “torture” means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
The Convention also provides, in Article 16 the following with respect to treatment that does not rise to the level of torture:
Article 16
1. Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article 1, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. In particular, the obligations contained in articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitution for references to torture or references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
2. The provisions of this Convention are without prejudice to the provisions of any other international instrument or national law which prohibit cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or which relate to extradition or expulsion.
Observations
The rough treatment of suspects “presumed to be innocent” has become rather commonplace in the United States and other countries.
From the “perp walk” arrested suspects are forced to undergo when entering the courthouse in many jurisdictions in the United States, to the treatment of John Walker Lindh, “the American Taliban”, when he was first captured and held in Afghanistan in 2001, from the CIA’s use of so-called “harsh interrogation techniques” (in violation of the Torture Convention) to the conditions in which suspects have been held in Guantánamo and Bagram prisons, the presumption of innocence seems to have frayed around the edges. The use of various forms of pressure on suspects, including interrogation techniques banned by the Torture Convention, international human rights law, and the laws of war seems to have become widespread, even if the most egregious of those techniques have now been banned by President Barack Obama by Executive Order.
The Treatment of John Walker Lindh While Detained in Afghanistan
A second case which throws light on contemporary practice regarding the presumption of innocence is that of John Walker Lindh, the so-called American Taliban. The following descriptions detail the conditions under which John Walker Lindh was detained in Afghanistan in 2001:
December 8-9, 2001: John Walker Lindh Kept in Metal Box for Two Days, Denied Medical Treatment According to government papers, later quoted by defense lawyers for captured “American Taliban” John Walker Lindh (see Late morning, November 25, 2001), “A Navy physician present at Camp Rhino recounted that the lead military interrogator in charge of Mr. Lindh’s initial questioning told the physician ‘that sleep deprivation, cold, and hunger might be employed’ during Mr. Lindh’s interrogations.” This interrogator later says, “he was initially told to get whatever information he could get from the detainee. However,… once it was determined from their initial questioning of Lindh that he was an American, which was done within an hour or so, [the military interrogator] informed a superior and was told they were done questioning him.” Lindh nevertheless is subjected to “sleep deprivation, cold, and hunger.” The metal container Lindh is kept in has no light or heat source. Only two small holes in the sides of the container allow some light and air to enter, through which military guards frequently shout swearwords at Lindh and discuss spitting in his food. According to his defense attorneys, “Mr. Lindh’s hands and feet remained restrained such that his forearms were forced together and fully extended, pointing straight down towards his feet. The pain from the wrist restraints was intense. Initially, Mr. Lindh remained fully exposed within the metal container, lying on his back; after some time had passed, one blanket was placed over him and one beneath him. While in the container the first two days, Mr. Lindh was provided minimal food and little medical attention. He suffered from constant pain from the plastic cuffs on his wrists and the bullet wound in his thigh. Because the metal container was placed next to a generator, the loud noise it generated echoed within the container. According to government disclosures, Mr. Lindh repeatedly said he was cold and asked for more protection from the weather. When Mr. Lindh needed to urinate, his guards did not release him from the restraints binding him to his stretcher, but instead propped up the stretcher into a vertical position. Due to hunger, the cold temperature, the noise, and the incessant pain caused by his wounds and the position in which he was restrained, Mr. Lindh was unable to sleep. Mr. Lindh was held under these conditions continuously for two days.” [United States of America v. John Walker Lindh, 6/13/2002 ]
–History Commons, War in Afghanistan, John Walker Lindh
Lindh’s father describes these conditions of confinement as follows:
On December 7 John was flown to Camp Rhino, a U.S. Marine base approximately 70 miles south of Kandahar, where he was taunted and threatened, stripped of his clothing, and bound naked to a stretcher with duct tape wrapped around his chest, arms, and ankles. It was winter in Afghanistan, and John shivered uncontrollably in the bitter cold. Still blindfolded, he was placed in a metal shipping container that sat on the desert floor. It was especially cold at night, and the pain from plastic restraints that had been tightened about his wrists was severe.
After two days in the container, he was taken into a building at Camp Rhino. When his blindfold was removed, John found himself in front of a man who identified himself as an FBI agent and then read from an advice-of-rights form. When the agent reached the part that concerned right to counsel, he said, “Of course, there are no lawyers here.” John was not told that his parents had retained an attorney for him who was ready and willing to travel to Afghanistan. Worried that he would be returned to the container if he did not sign the form, John signed the waiver.
A two-day interrogation followed, after which U.S. military personnel put John back in the metal shipping container, although this time his leg- and handcuffs were loosened and he was no longer bound by duct tape or blindfolded. On December 14 he was placed on board the USS Peleliu, where Navy physicians observed that he was suffering from dehydration, hypothermia, and frostbite, and that he could not walk. On December 15 the bullet was finally removed from his leg in a surgical procedure conducted more than two weeks after he had been transferred to the custody of the U.S. military.
–Frank R. Lindh, “The Crimeless Crime: The Prosecution
of John Walker Lindh,” DC Bar, Taking the Stand, May 2005.
Analysis and Further Observations
What are we witnessing when we see something like the “perp walk” of Dominique Strauss Kahn in New York when he was arrested for sexual assault in New York in 2011, but before he was found guilty by a court? In this New York case, in fact, he was never found criminally guilty by a court.
What does it mean when we see John Walker Lindh taped naked to a table in a container bin in Afghanistan, in freezing conditions, before he has been convicted of any crime? He was, of course, later convicted. The point, however, is that he had not been convicted at the time, and in any event the conditions of his confinement almost certainly represented a violation of the laws of war.
Are we witnessing a kind of militarization of the criminal justice process, where those who are arrested are treated as if they were guilty by the authorities, just as suspected terrorists may be treated, or even killed by drones in the infamous “signature strikes” where they are convicted by perceptions of their patterns of activity without even knowing their names?
Just what does the presumption of innocence mean today, in the United States, the Vatican and other countries? Does it mean, legally, that the accused are to be treated as if they are innocent?
That seemed to be the original idea, going all the way back to Cesare Beccaria. Where do we as a society, as an international community, stand with respect to that idea today?
What happened?
The Trenchant Observer
Tags: article 14, Bagram, cesare beccaria, chpater on torture, dominco Fiani, dominque strauss kahn, Frank R. Lindh, guantanamo, international covenant on human rights, John walker lindh, militarization of crimoinal justice process, militarization of the criminal justice process, of, of crimes and punishments, on torture, paolo gabriele, perp walk, pope benedict, pope's butler, presumption of innocence, prosecution of john walker lindh, standards used by other countries in similar circumstances, u.n. covenant on human rights, un convention against torture, vatican
Posted in Afghanistan, CIA, History, human rights, Intelligence, International Law, Justice Department, NATO, self-defense, State Department, State Department Human Rights Country Reports, Taliban, Torture, U.N. Convention Against Torture, U.N. Torture Convention, U.S Foreign Relations, U.S. Military, United States, use of force, war crimes | No Comments »
Tuesday, September 25th, 2012
Remarks at Media Stakeout Outside Security Council by Guido Westerwelle, German Foreign Minister, September 24, 2012
SC President, Guido Westerwelle (Germany) on Syria – Security Council Media Stakeout, 24 Sep 2012 (video link)- Informal comments to the media by H. E. Mr. Guido Westerwelle, Foreign Minister of Germany and the Security Council President for September on the situation in Syria. [English and German]
Remarks at Media Stakeout Outside Security Council by Lakhdar Brahimi, Joint Special Representative of the United Nations and the League of Arab States, and of Peter Wittig, President of the U.N. Security Council, September 24, 2012.
SC President, Peter Wittig (Germany) and Lakhdar Brahimi, Joint Special Representative of the United Nations and the League of Arab States on Syria – Security Council Media Stakeout (24 September 2012) – 24 Sep 2012 (video link)- Informal comments to the media by H. E. Mr. Peter Wittig, Permanent Representative of Germany to the UN and Security Council President and by Joint Special Representative of the UN and the League of Arab States on the Syrian crisis, Lakhdar Brahimi.
Analysis
Judging from Brahimi’s comments, he plans to settle in for a long period of time as Joint Special Envoy of the United Nations and the League of Arab States, enjoying the perquisites of the 17 member staff set up in Geneva and his tax-free salary of $189,000 per year.
On the positive side, he didn’t say much, though he has begun to hold out false hopes for a breakthrough, just as Kofi Annan did, saying he expected developments that would make an “opening” possible in the not too distant future.
Recommendations:
1. Brahimi’s mission, and his 17-member office in Geneva, should be ended at the earliest opportunity.
2. The Security Council should set up a special working group of the Permanent Members of the Council to meet weekly to roll up their sleeves and work together to find a solution to the impasse in the Security Council. How do Russia and China intend to stop the civil war and the ongoing commission of crimes against humanity and war crimes by the government of Syria? What do they propose beyond watching the slaughter unfold as extremist elements of the armed opposition gain momentum?
Brahimi’s talk of pursuing Kofi Annan’s six-point plan should send all the permanent representatives to the Security Council running for the exits, or running to ensure that Brahimi exits at an early date.
We’ve already done this. We’ve been there. 30,000 Syrians have died while the Security Council failed to deal with the killing in Syria, and Kofi Annan misled the world with false hopes and illusory peace plans, “castles in the sky” lacking any plan to force al-Assad to stop his crimes. Diplomacy focused on the Security Council has failed.
Enough is enough. We don’t need to do this again. What we need to do is to stop the killing. Now. By military action outside the framework of the Security Council, if that is what is required.
The Trenchant Observer
Tags: castles in the sky, Joint Special Representative Lakhdar Brahimi, kofi annan plan. six-point plan, Lakhdar Brahimi, military intervention, no new ideas, security council impasse continues, Siria, situation in Syria, syria, Syrie, Syrien, U.N. Security Council
Posted in Azerbaijan, Barack Obama, Brazil, China, Crimes Against Humanity, Deutschland, Egypt, extrajudicial execution, France, Germany, Guatemala, History, human rights, India, International Law, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, NATO, Portugal, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, syria, Togo, Torture, Tunisia, U.N. Security Council, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, united arab emirates, United Kingdom, United Nations Secretary General, United States, use of force, war crimes | No Comments »
Tuesday, September 18th, 2012
Responding to Atrocities in Syria: It’s Not Just About Al-Assad, It’s About Us
Originally published March 6, 2012
I heard a boy in Syria on the BBC talking about what was going on there, a few days ago, and he said that ultimately the atrocities could not be stopped until people in other countries really cared about the suffering of the people in Homs, and elsewhere in Syria, and intervened to stop it.
It really comes down to that. Whether the leaders and populations of the countries of the civilized world care about al-Assad’s ongoing commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity, sufficiently to stop it. That boy hit the nail on the head. It all boils down to whether we care. Enough.
About the individual human beings who are being slaughtered.
But the leaders of the civilized world, such as they are, don’t care. Not enough to act, not enough to undertake the only action that might stop al-Assad, which is using military force to halt the killing.
Given the momentum and tempo of the murderous offensives underway, it is highly doubtful that even China and Russia, al-Assad’s accomplices in the commission of these crimes, could force Syria to stop the killing. Nor is it likely that a new Security Council resolution, even with the abstention or support of China and Russia, could stop the killing. Unless it authorized the use of military force, and even then delays in execution–such as those that occurred in Libya–could cost thousands of more lives.
**************************************************
For earlier articles on Syria by The Trenchant Observer, see the Articles on Syria page.
**************************************************
It is difficult to sleep, here in the United States, knowing that dozens or hundreds of people are being murdered each day by Bashar al-Assad’s soldiers and security forces, during these same hours, in broad daylight in Syria. Men and boys are being rounded up in groups and taken away to be executed–or executed on the spot. Men are pulled from cars at checkpoints, and taken to be shot.
This is what General Franco’s forces did during the Civil War in Spain from 1936-1939. It is what Hitler’s officers and soldiers did throughout Europe in World War II, from September 1939 until they were stopped in May, 1945 by the combined military forces of the Allied Powers.
Not just men and boys, but also women and children are being killed every day in Syria by the indiscriminate shelling by tanks, artillery and anti-aircraft weapons into apartment blocks and homes. Round-ups are underway, where individuals believed to be opponents of al-Assad, or who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, or who just happen to be Sunni instead of Alawite, are hunted down and either taken away to be tortured and/or shot, or have their throats slit by knives as they lay tied on the ground.
Hell has come to Syria.
A merciless slaughter and brutal repression are currently underway in Syria, each day as we try to sleep in the United States–a relentless, grinding slaughter, with horrors beyond all telling.
We know this. The world knows this. The world has first-hand testimony from witnesses, videos from cameras and smart phones, almost in real time. We have the U.N. Special Commission Report on Syria of February 22, 2012, which provides the details. News accounts bring us up to the present, with chilling accuracy.
The death toll has already surpassed the 7,000 men and boys massacred at Srebrenice, in 1995–as U.N. peacekeepers from the Netherlands, stationed in Srebrenice, stood by and did nothing to protect the population from the butchery of Slobodan Milosovic and Ratko Mladic.
It is some consolation that both were taken to The Hague, where Milosovic died while being tried, and where Mladic’s trial will commence in May. But their trials cannot bring back the men and boys who were slaughtered in Srebrenice on July 11, 1995.
And we, in the civilized world, swore that we would never let Srebrenice happen again.
One would think the Dutch would be out front on this one. But they aren’t.
To be sure, there have been other crimes against humanity, in Rwanda and Darfur, for example. And it is demonstrably true that we in the civilized world cannot stop all such crimes in all such places.
But in Syria, at the center of the lands and civilizations, going back four thousand years, which once formed part of the Roman Empire, close to Jerusalem and the heartland of the three religions of the The Book (Chirstianity, Judaism, and Islam), the civilized world could do something to stop this killing–if it had the courage and the will to do so.
Tragically, our leaders are too feckless to act. It would be difficult to take down the Syrian air defenses, our military leaders testify before Congress. The mililtary action would be difficult, and that is adduced as a reason not to undertake it. As if the Normandy invasion was not difficult. Or the Battle of Corregidor. Or taking down the Serbian air defenses in the bombing in Serbia in 1999 to stop the the ethnic cleansing by the Serbs in Kosovo.
Why is it hard to sleep?
Because I believe that President Obama has real-time intelligence on the details of the atrocities that are being committed, and may well be able to watch events in real-time from cameras on satellites and drones and other platforms (as he did when Bin Laden was taken down). I believe he knows exactly what is going on. And he is unwilling to lift a finger to do anything about it.
He has reportedly vetoed any military action, within the last week.
I support Obamacare, but I can’t support “Obama doesn’t care”.
I heard a boy in Syria on the BBC talking about what was going on there, a few days ago, and he said that ultimately the atrocities could not be stopped until people in other countries really cared about the suffering of the people in Homs, and elsewhere in Syria, and intervened to stop it.
It really comes down to that. Whether the leaders and populations of the countries of the civilized world care about al-Assad’s ongoing commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity, sufficiently to stop it. That boy hit the nail on the head. It all boils down to whether we care. Enough.
About the individual human beings who are being slaughtered.
But the leaders of the civilized world, such as they are, don’t care. Not enough to act, not enough to undertake the only action that might stop al-Assad, which is using military force to halt the killing.
Given the momentum and tempo of the murderous offensives underway, it is highly doubtful that even China and Russia, al-Assad’s accomplices in the commission of these crimes, could force Syria to stop the killing. Nor is it likely that a new Security Council resolution, even with the abstention or support of China and Russia, could stop the killing. Unless it authorized the use of military force, and even then delays in execution–such as those that occurred in Libya–could cost thousands of more lives.
That is why Kofi Annan’s U.N. mediation effort is so tragic. It is misbegotten on principle, and the principle is that we should not negotiate the cessation of the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity. We should not negotiate with war criminals, except for the terms of their prompt exit from the scene.
It is ill-considered in that, wholly aside from the principle of the matter, Annan’s consultations will 1) give al-Assad control of the pace of the “mediation” efforts; and 2) lead to drawn-out diplomatic consultations that will give the Syrian Dictator the time he wants to commit more war crimes and crimes against humanity to wipe out his opponents, and their villages and towns.
Only mass amnesia at the office of U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, and other powers he may have consulted, could account for the failure to take into account the sad history of the Arab League’s negotiations with Syria over implementation of its November peace plan, and its experience in sending monitors to the country. Whatever al-Assad might agree to, would be utterly worthless, as he has zero credibility. And more time would be lost, to check on his compliance with any agreement, for diplomatic consultations as to what to do. More time for war crimes and crimes against humanity, and the total destruction of neighborhoods and towns that have shown opposition or resistance.
Actually, there has been one notable exception to the general passivity of leaders in the civilized world. U.S. Senator and former presidential candidate John McCain had the courage to speak up on the floor of the Senate yesterday, March 5, and to call for air attacks on al-Assad’s forces to halt the killing and other atrocities. In the United States, his speech was reported in general, but the powerful and cogently reasoned arguments he presented, supporting his call for immediate military action, have as yet received little coverage in the United States. News coverage in Europe, in fact, may be better.
The speech is of fundamental importance for understanding the options that face us in Syria, and the consequences of inaction. It should be mandatory reading for anyone who is following developments in that country.
So why should all of this cause anyone to be troubled as he goes to sleep?
The crimes are eerily similar to the crimes for which the Nazi war criminals were prosecuted at Nuremberg.
We are doing nothing effective to stop al-Assad from continuing with his massacres. We know what is going on. We are gutless wonders.
So, what is going on in Syria is not only about al-Assad. It is also about us.
It is about the levels of barbarism we are willing to watch, in real time, close to Jerusalem and the heart of Europe and the Middle East, without lifting a finger.
We have no principles left which we believe are worth fighting for.
Afghanistan long since ceased to be about building democracy and the rule of law, even in incipient form, and there we fight only so we can get out without the Afghan government falling. Victory is not the goal, but “degrading the Taliban”, while we delude ourselves with thoughts of a negotiated settlement that would amount to something short of capitulation–over time–to the Taliban.
I doubt that Obama would have acted to bomb Serbia in order to halt the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, if it had occurred on his watch.
We have no leaders, and the world is adrift.
Civilized countries now accept the commission of crimes against humanity and war crimes.
That is not right. And so it is with a troubled mind that I now seek sleep.
The Trenchant Observer
observer@trenchantobserver.com
twitter.com/trenchantobserv
Tags: 1936-1939, 2012, a troubled mind, al-Assad, al-assad accomplices, anti-aircraft, apartment blocks, Arab League, Arab League monitors, artillery, Assad, battle of corregidor, bbc, bombing of serbia, boy in syria, China, Christianity, comen and children indiscriminate shelling, courage, Crimes Against Humanity, death toll, degrading the taliban, democracy and the rule of law, dutch out fron, enough, ethnic cleasing, Europe, February 22, Francisco Franco, fundamental human rights, going back four thousand years, hell has come to syria, HItler, Holland, homes, I now seek sleep, in the wrong place at the wrong time, Islam, jerusalem, John McCain speech, Judaism, kofi annan, kosovo, lands and civilizations, leaders too feckless to act, Libye, mandatory reading, mass amnesia, mediation, men and boy, merciless slaughter, military force to stop the killing, military intervention, military intervention in Syria, misbegotten on principle, monitors, Nazi war criminals, no principles left, normandy invasion, November peace plan, Obama, obama doesn't care, obamacare, opponents of al-assad, opponents of assad, press coverage, Ratko Mladic, real-time intelligence, Roman Empire, round-ups, roundups, Russia, Rwanda and Darfur, serbs, Siria, sirie, slobodan milosovic, Spanish Civil War, Srebrenice, struggle for democracy, struggle for democracy in syria, sunni instead of alawite, syria, syrian air defenses, Syrien, tanks, the civilized worldç dutch, the courage and the will, the individual human beings who are being slaughtered, the Netherlands, the three religions of the book, the world is adrift, u.n. mediation effort, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, u.n. Special commission report on syria, United States, unwilling to lift a finger, victory is not the goal, war crimes, we have no leaders, whether we care, widespread grave violations, will, World War II
Posted in "that spark of the divine", Barack Obama, China, coverage of foreign events, Crimes Against Humanity, Deutschland, Dictatorship, Germany, History, human rights, Intelligence, kosovo, Middle East, NATO, Russia, Serbia, State Department, syria, Taliban, Torture, U.N. Charter, U.N. Security Council, U.N. Torture Convention, U.S. Congress, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, U.S. news coverage, United States, use of force, war crimes | No Comments »