Pakistan's Afghan Policy

#443 by PewResearch

Look pew, I admire your looking for a legal case as you appear to be a logical person, but let`s leave conjectures out of it and just concentrate on the letter and spirit of the UN Charter if you like law so much, and if you insist, even the article VI of the 1950 Nuremberg principles which were indeed adopted by UN General Assembly.

Now the operative para of the article 51 in this case says:

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...

So it points to armed attack. Again, did Taliban carry out an armed attack against US?

The Principle VI of the 1950 Nuremberg Principles, indeed includes a) Crimes against peace:(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;(ii)Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the actsmentioned under (i).

But my friend all these ares punishable as crimes under international law.

No?

Where does the above allow aggression against another country for their violation?

Of-course you can make the argument that their towers came down and people jumped out of windows and all that so they retaliated. I`ll respect that argument and fully accept it. But it was not within the farthest reaches of any international law.

Re: # 442
``Mullah Omar`s offer to hand Usama over to the Hague complied with international law``
By 9/11 this did not matter. The matter was now how to remove Al Qaeda, their camps, their infrastructure from Afghanistan. By the time of 9/11, Mullah Omar`s offer on handing over Osama were not sufficient since the situation had changed from (i) attacking an embassy to (ii) attacking the national territory of the US. Under Article 51, the US could act in self-defence. The matter after 9/11 was not just handing over Osama, but the violation of the territory of the US thereby invoking an Article 51 response.
So, your logic is eminently flawed on this one.

You also chose to ignore the whole Article 51 rationale and instead focused on Principle VI. I introduced the Nuremberg Principles as a possible legal code to charge President Bush and his Administration under if the world believes that he acted illegally. If the world believes that Bush acted illegally in Afghanistan, then he could be tried under Principle III of the Nuremberg Principles (whose very existence you were unaware of until at least `on October 30, 2006 9:07am PT`! Yet you persist in crudely using this new-found information!). Nobody has made the General Assembly move on that! A little education is very dangerous as you demonstrate!

Principle III states:
The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.

Aah I see ... Principle VI of the 1950 Nuremberg Principles.

But you very conveniently missed the first line and dutifully reproduced what followed:

Principle VI The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

This principle is to put on trial and punish alleged crimes under international law, and not to attack a whole country. Mullah Omar`s offer to hand Usama over to the Hague complied with international law, but that was not good enough for your master.

Now, get lost.

#428 by Mantolives

[The question my dear friend is not whether the Pakistan cricket team had liberal aunties...

The question is when and how will you- a Hindu fascist- will declare that Muhammad Azharuddin, Zaheer Khan, Muhammad Kaif and Irfan Pathan ... the pride and joy of Indian cricket are actually non-Indians... ]

They are Indian citizens who have been born into the Arab goo chaater culture.


[And no my aunt would not have named me Gopinath... despite her liberal communist Indo-phile and Hindu-Phile views... because.. Gopinath is a Hindu name ... and I am not a Hindu. Simple.]

Finally, we have the admission. No - names emanating from the Indian soil are just ``Indian`` names. And that is PRECISELY the point. A name like ``Ajay``, ``Akash``, ``Badal`` etc. - what does that have to do with religion? MOST North Indian names, and many South Indian names are simply derived from Sankrit. That`s all. Nothing to do with religion.

Rather that argue with me, ask yourself - WHY does a Sanskrit-derived name appear to be ``Hindu`` to Muslims? What heritage are they trying to deny? And what heritage are they trying to adopt?

It is, my dear boy, the famous ``Arab-goo-chaater`` syndrome. Like it or not.



[Does that make me a lesser human being, lesser South Asian, lesser son of the Indus soil, ``Arab goo-chater`` ... You seem to think so... and today it is the names. Tomorrow you may ask Muslims to leave Islam because it is alien to the subcontinent... which is why I thank god I am not from the same country as you... ]

Me too. God bless Jinnah.


[And lets assume... that it is the latent wish of a common South Asian Muslim to be more Arab that forces him to name his children with ``Arab`` names ]

It is, my dear boy, it is.


[(which I have proved are as Pakistani, Indian, American as they are Arab)]

What proof? ``Yasser`` is an Arab name. ``Vladimir`` is a Russian name. Period.


[... why must it bite you...]

It doesn`t bite me at all. If sons of the soil are trying to pretend to belong to alien heritages, I really don`t care. But don`t accuse the general population if they look to you as alien and separate from them - YOU started the process. YOU are responsible for it.

And it makes my ``Arab goo chaater`` comment completely valid.



[If a person is a tax paying, law abiding citizen of your country ... you can hardly impose such cultural fascism on them.]

Islam may have forced IT`S cultural fascism on YOU, but in India, there is nobody forcing anybody to name their children in a certain way. We Hindus are democratic by nature and instinct, as opposed to you Muslims. India is a democracy. Pakiland is not.

Re: # 439 Zeemax
`Did Afghanistan attack US?`
You figure that out, bozo! To answer that I will have to educate you on what constitutes a `sovereign state`, the basis of international relations between sovereign states and the Treaty of Westphalia. Along the way, you will learn about such intricacies as to what the responsibility of a sovereign state is with regard to private militias operating out of its territory that occassionally ram otherwise normal planes into occupied buildings.
CIAO. Like I said earlier, I will ignore any thing that is not substantial.
In 1950, the U.N. International Law Commission adopted the Nuremberg Principles.
The Nuremberg Principles are a set of guidelines for determining what constitutes a war crime and were created by necessity during the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi party members following World War II.

#438

Ok. This is article 51:

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.

Now state your position which interpretation applies to bombing Afghanistan? Did Afghanistan attack US?

And what is this principle VI you`ve now brought out? Whose principle is this? The 1% principle of the doctrine of pre-emption of Cheney?

You better make your case because you`ve made an outrageous contention.

Re: # 436

Under Article 51, no `incovtrovertible proof` is needed like in a court of law since the supreme jury for these matters is the UN General Assembly and its sub-body, the UN Security Council - both political (not judicial) entities. Nevertheless, if UN member states STILL believe that a state (e.g. US) is waging a `War of Aggression` (e.g. invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11) and not acting in `self-defense` as it can under Article 51, they (i.e. UN General Assembly) can always act to restrain the US and charge it with violation of the Nuremberg Principles.

Principle VI specifically makes the following a crime:

Crime against peace

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

So, after you have had the time to digest the above (and also mull over the Taleban/Al Qaeda role in the acts leading up to before 9/11 to see if THEY violated Principle VI!!), then think about why no General Assembly motion has passed so far to rein in the US. (I am specifically excluding the Security Council since the US has a veto in the Council and therefore will likely kill any such motions as soon as they are conceived.). The General Assembly is not restrained as the Council is by US veto authority.

You are getting a free education here. Give me something substantial in your next post. Otherwise, I am ignoring you.

#435 by arjun2

Although I don`t like to stoop to respond to you, but just this time.

The grapevine is it wasn`t the Paks, it was the Americans. Pak military is owning it because (1) it would be a bigger mess otherwise as in the previous attack in the same area which killed just 18 civilians. This time it`s 80 and there`s a complete blockade on journalists entering the region who spilled the beans last time. And (2) It will shut Karzai up.

Of-course there`ll be consequences as no arms have been produced from that `training camp`.

Don`t bother to reply.

#434 by PewResearch

Ok .. you and your article 51 ... now cite me a single incontrovertible proof Usama was involved in 9/11 ... and don`t give me that sh!t about the videos ....

were the 80 pakis who were whacked when the paki army bombed a madrassah today indicted?

Re: # 433
The point is that UN Resolution 1333 was ALREADY provided EVEN BEFORE 9/11 enough grounds for his extradition.

Also, the main thrust of my remarks was Article 51 of the UN CHARTER

Go get an education.

#432 by PewResearch

You idiot, Usama has never been indicted for 9/11. Your resolution was in 2000 and 9/11 was in 2001.

Of all the AH`s....

Re: # 430 Dost-Mittar/Zeemax
You guys are totally out of touch with reality! Have you ever read the UN Charter (the CHARTER, not just the resolutions).
Go read Article 51 which begins with:
`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.`

Also, the UN Security Council had issued Resolution 1333 on December 19, 2000 directed towards the Taliban demanding that the Taliban turn over bin Laden to the United States or a third country for trial in the deadly bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa in August 1998, and close terrorist training camps, with the threat of trade sanctions, freezing Taliban assets abroad, etc.

Morons using high-falutin` legalese!

#418 by dost-mittar on October 29, 2006 4:15pm PT


However, I also do not remember seeing any report of Osama being indicted by any US court on any specific charge, so I do not know on what basis the US was demanding OBL`s handover.


Was the Japanese empire indicted? I also do not rememeber seeing any report or a trial proving the japanese had attacked pearl harbor..

bongdong#420:

Thanks for your reference. I had not seen this indictment before.


zeemax:

I agree that the US had no legal basis to attack either Afghanistan or Iraq.

#417 by bbabu


Did they punish the hijackers of Indian Airlines jetliner to Kandahar ?

I thought you guys had made a deal with the hijackers to go free. Why would Taliban punish them in violation of your agreement? Should they have done that?

Explain why give shelter to Osama in the first place.

Shelter? Against what crime? Usama had committed no crime in AF, had denied involvement in 9/11, and were provided no proof of his involvement. Why would they hand him over? On what charge? You must be joking. See DMs post and my response.

All those Pakistanis who were captured and slaughtered in Mazar-e-Sharif were withdrawing. Give me a break.

Correct that many Paks were caught and it is also correct they were trying to make it back to Pak after Talbs withdrew into the mountains and foreigners were left to fend for themselves. In fact, there was an airlift of Pak advisers from Kanduz but not of the fighters because they had travalled illegally to fight alongside Taliban. Refer this artcle.

The same Taliban slaughtered thousands of Hazaras in Bamian province. You must have a warped sense of justice.

You are simply lying out of prejudice. There was no massacre of `thousands` in Bamiyan neither were Taliban even accused of any. Please quote a news source if you have one.