The
War on Terror: Truth has no relevance, only agendas are important

Bruce
G. Richardson 

Adding
insult to injury: U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton met recently with
her Russian counterpart, Sergev Lavrov, in the city of Ulyanovsk to formulate
an agreement that would allow U.S. and their NATO basing facilities in Russian
territory. Moscow has provided the U.S. and other NATO member states with air
corridors and railway routes for carrying supplies to and from Afghanistan. The
new deal would for the first time allow alliance members to set up a logistics
facility for troops and cargo on Russian territory. Lavrov defended the
agreement, saying the success of the NATO mission is essential for fending off
the spread of terrorism and illegal drugs from Afghanistan into ex-Soviet
Central Asian nations and Russia. (See: Global
Research, e-Newsletter, March, 2012)

What
has not been a part of the official, publicized dialogue, however, is the fact
that currently unmarked Russian war planes have been bombing Taliban positions
in Afghanistan and Russian soldiers attired as Northern Alliance regulars have
been fighting alongside Northern Alliance soldiers against the Taliban. It has
been reported that the U.S., in exchange for the basing arrangement and the
deployment of Russian military against the Taliban, have provided
behind-the-scenes diplomatic support for the Russian bloodletting in Chechnya
while refraining from openly criticizing Moscow. (See: Global
Research e-Newsletter, March, 2012)

For
many of us, that the U.S. and Russia have joined forces to assault Afghanistan
is unconscionable, contrary to international law, treaty, convention and moral
precedent. Between 1979 and 1989, Russia invaded and occupied Afghanistan,
killing over two-million Afghans and turned more than 25,000 habited villages
to rubble. During October of 2001, the U.S., based on fabricated intelligence
from Northern Alliance sources, bombed, invaded and occupied Pashtun areas of
Afghanistan. While civilian casualty counts are continuing to rise at an
alarming rate, and as yet in the process of tabulation by human rights
monitors, preliminary estimates numbering in the many thousands are mind
numbing. (See: Afghanistan,
Ending the Reign of Soviet Terror, Bruce G. Richardson, 1998)

Both
the stated official Russian and U.S. positions that these agreements are to
combat terrorism and drug proliferation are decidedly a sham. Both Moscow and
Washington have a long and sordid history of recruiting terrorists to secure a
political outcome and using drug receipts to fund off-the-books-wars… out
of congressional oversight, public and parliamentary scrutiny. This is indeed
adding insult to injury, for many, al-Qaeda is but a covert-wing of the
CIA.

War Crimes as
Metaphor for War:

The
twentieth and twenty-first centuries have been bloody epochs, with horrendous
devastation visited upon civilian populations by many armies, but notably by
the armed forces of Russia and the United States.  After World War II, at
Nuremberg and Tokyo, the international community enshrined the importance of
bringing war criminals to justice. Despite these precedents, until tribunals in
Holland and Tanzania recently began hearing testimony about war crimes in the
former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, no international efforts at justice had been
convened in nearly fifty years…even though acts of monstrous barbarity and
proportion have continued to occur. The abuses in Afghanistan and Central
Africa have raised public awareness of war crimes to new levels and sparked
questions among concerned citizens: How
can these atrocities occur while the world is watching? If they do occur, what
can be done to ensure that offenders are captured and punished?
(See: Documents
On the Laws of War, Adam Roberts, Richard Guelff, Second Edition,
1989)

During
the war in Vietnam, Americans came face-to-face with a difficult truth: Their
countrymen were and are capable of war crimes too.  Journalists were
reporting the deliberate killing of civilians, and indiscriminate air attacks
by U.S. forces. The most decorated American soldier of the Korean War, Anthony
Herbert, a lieutenant colonel in Vietnam, publicly accused fellow officers of
complicity in war crimes, an accusation that caused Herbert to receive a
punitive reassignment. But the only Vietnam War crimes trial was the
prosecution of Lieutenant William Calley and Captain Ernest Medina for the
massacre at My Lai on March 16, 1968. Charlie Company, 11^th Brigade, 23^rd Infantry
Division entered the hamlet of My Lai on a ‘search and destroy mission.’ They
entered the village around 8am in the morning. Seven hours later more than 500
villagers lay dead many of whom, were women and children. Though both
Lieutenant William Calley and Captain Ernest Medina were tried and found guilty
of pre-meditated murder, their sentences were reduced to just a few days in
prison.  

The
recent and unfathomable massacre in the Panjwar District of South Kandahar
Province of Afghanistan has drawn inevitable comparisons to the My Lai
atrocity. As with Lieutenant Calley in Vietnam, Staff Sergeant Robert Bales,
initially reported to have acted alone during his depraved act of violence
which left 16 dead including women and young children, is now thought to be a
part of a 15-20 man force engaged in night raids in the area who had previously
threatened the male population of Pashtun villages in the area. An Afghan
Parliamentarian, MP Nahim Lalai Hamidzai, upon investigation says “the massacre
was carried out by a team of U.S. soldiers and not a lone individual.” He went
on to say that “all the villagers said there were 15-20 men who had conducted a
night raid operating in several areas in the village, and that the soldiers had
told the villagers, you will pay a price” for a recent roadside bomb attack.
 The U.S. continues to cloud and defuse the issue, insisting that the
massacre ‘was the work of a lone individual suffering from (PTSD)
post-traumatic stress disorder.’

This
most recent war crime is but one of many that has occurred during this war. In
December of 2001, an American B-52 and 2 B1B bombers killed 110 of 112 Afghan
Pashtun villagers celebrating a wedding. In addition, the desecration of bodies
by souvenir hunting U.S. soldiers and of those killed by coalition forces, and
the burning of the sacred texts have been recurring crimes. In yet another
incident, in the Federally Administered Tribal Area (FATA) of Pakistan, several
hundred have been killed with the indiscriminate use of pilotless drones.
(See: Global
Research e-Newsletter, January, 2002)

The
incident at My Lai in Vietnam and the massacre in Kandahar as well, once
headline news, have both served and continue to serve public opposition to and
a growing disaffection for the war.

Sadly,
the United States has refused to ratify the International Criminal Court (ICC),
and recently President Obama has signed legislation granting immunity to
members of the Bush Administration for war crimes committed in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Lawyers assigned to defend Staff Sergeant Robert Bales are busily
mounting a defense based on the sergeant’s medical disorders that could result
in the charges being dropped.  Perhaps justice will be frustrated. History
attests that only the most powerful nations of the world have been allowed to
engage in bringing war crimes charges against weaker nations. Yet, the Spanish
Court has courageously ruled that war criminals that travel outside the
protection of their own countries of origin ‘are subject to arrest, and to
stand trial for their terrible crimes.’ The creation of an independent
international tribunal for war crimes led by Spain is currently under
consideration by several countries. (See: Documents
On the Laws of War, Adam Roberts, Richard Guelff, Second Edition, 1989 and
Afghanistan, a Search for Truth, Bruce G. Richardson, 2009)

While
we are constantly advised of the sacrifices made by U.S. servicemen and women,
we as well have the remarkable, uncanny-ability to ignore the many thousands of
lives lost as we prosecute our ‘war on terror’. Those architects, responsible
for this and other ‘wars of aggression’ and resultant carnage, giving rise
and currency to the adage: ‘man’s inhumanity to man,’ must be held
accountable.

Bruce
G. Richardson

Notes:

Three
days following the 9/11 attack, Congress passed the “Authorization to Use
Military Force” or (AUMF) authorization which has given the president
carte blanche to wage war, to occupy nations, to kill people with unmanned
drone ‘signature strikes’ based not on guilt, trial and due process by a
lawfully assembled court, but on political expediency and or a remote,
extra-legal, extra-psychological analysis of a suspects ‘patterns of
life.’ 

The
language contained under AUMF is as follows:  ‘The president is authorized
to use all necessary force against those nations, organizations, or persons he
determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attack on
September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to
prevent any further attacks of international terrorism against the United
States by such nations, organizations or persons.’

Re-writing
the Constitution? When one recognizes that President Obama is a law professor,
and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, it is difficult if not impossible to
fathom his demonstrated disdain for the rule of law with his prosecution of the
so-called war on terror in Afghanistan, a nation that had no role whatsoever in
9/11. In addition to infractions of codified international law (Geneva
Conventions, etc.) which cites U.S. prosecution of war in Afghanistan as guilty
of ‘war of aggression’, the supreme law of the land, the Constitution of the
United States refutes unequivocally and proscribes the administration’s
Afghanistan war policies to include, amongst a host of infractions and
violations, authorizing drone and special operations’ assassinations without
due process: The Constitution states… ‘No
person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without the due process
of law.’

To
thwart criticism from legal specialists, journalists, media, and judges, yet
clearly in constant and continuing violation of U.S. Constitutional and
codified international law, the administration has established “kill
courts” convened in secret to decide who is to be executed without trial
or charge. Currently, in a celebration and embrace of vigilantism, the CIA and
the Pentagon, not the courts, are the administration’s chosen and appointed
‘judge, jury and executioner.’

The
Northern Alliance group has sought and utilized the U.S. military to oppose and
eliminate their traditional Pashtun enemies with the issuance of bogus
intelligence. Their cooperation with the U.S. has resulted in the death of
thousands of Pashtuns from aerial and drone attack.