ESCALATING AFGHAN WAR WILL “DESTROY” OBAMA

by Sherwood Ross

Escalating the war in Afghanistan will destroy the Obama presidency “almost as surely as (Viet) Nam and Iraq destroyed Johnson’s, Nixon’s and Bush II’s,” a noted law dean warns. Obama “seems to be drinking the same Kool Aid that was drunk by, and destroyed the presidencies” of those predecessors, writes Lawrence Velvel, dean of the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover.

Obama’s policy of striking on the Afghan “central front” to thwart terrorist attacks in their sanctuary while rebuilding roads and providing electricity “is all very reminiscent of ---in parts identical to---Johnson’s and Nixon’s statements about Nam, Nixon’s about Cambodia (a claimed sanctuary for planning and refitting), and Bush II’s about Iraq,” Velvel recalls.

Obama’s statements “would indicate he has learned nothing from the debacles in Indo China and Iraq. They are especially dumb for having been made by a guy who is quite smart,” Velvel said. He noted, “Britain and Russia, both at the height of empire, met disaster in Afghanistan , and so would Obama in all probability.” If Obama believes the U.S. must fight in Afghanistan, “then his presidency is already doomed. Neither Alexander the Great, nor the British nor the Russians succeeded there.”

Velvel said it is understandable the U.S. went after Osama bin Laden’s camps in Afghanistan initially but asks “what is our basic reason for, (and) what are we accomplishing by, fighting in Afghanistan now?”

Initially, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan because its government, the Taliban, had harbored Al Qaeda, so the U.S. decided to depose the Taliban instead of simply destroying Al Qaeda’s camps, Velvel said. He called this “a very questionable decision if one that was at least understandable given the temper of the time.”

“But in the long run it didn’t work. The Taliban are back. The opium is back. The warlords continue. And when they have to, Al Qaeda personnel simply go into Pakistan….even if we were to commit a million men, Al Qaeda will simply go into Pakistan,” Velvel said.

Bin Ladin and Al Qaeda, he notes, have moved to Pakistan , do not need to use Afghanistan as their base and are not doing so. “Are we going to fight in that nation even though Al Qaeda is now ensconced in Pakistan and has no need of Afghanistan ?” Velvel asks. “What is it with the United States ---does it have some kind of horrific national death wish?” Two authorities on the Middle East, former Secretary of State Zbigniew Brzezinski and former Colin Powell Chief of Staff Col. Lawrence Wilkerson have expressed their opposition to any heavy added militarization by the U.S. in Afghanistan, Velvel notes.

By escalating the conflict in Afghanistan , Velvel points out that “huge numbers” of voters that supported Obama “will leave him and begin assailing him.”

“One can only pray that a smart guy like Obama sees the light on this and does not fight a war in Afghanistan . Otherwise one will in future have to write that war destroyed the presidencies of Wilson, Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Bush and Obama,” Velvel writes.

Velvel’s thoughts on Afghanistan are published in his new book of essays “America 2008,” available from Doukathsan press by contacting rosa@mslaw.edu . The book appears just as U.S. air attacks on alleged terrorist sanctuaries in Pakistan and Afghanistan have created widespread dismay among their peoples owing to the civilian casualties they produced.

Velvel cofounded the Massachusetts School of Law in 1988. It was established to provide an affordable, quality education to minority, immigrant, and low-income students who could not otherwise enter the legal profession. He has been honored by legal publications for his contributions to legal education and his essays on the law and political issues have won a number of awards from the book publishing industry.

U.S. to attend Hague International Criminal Court meeting as observer

Decision to ratify is “years away”

By David Clarke

NAIROBI, Nov 16 (Reuters) - The United States will attend an International Criminal Court (ICC) meeting this week as an observer for the first time since the Hague court was set up in 2002, President Barack Obama's war crimes envoy said on Monday.

Stephen Rapp, U.S. ambassador-at-large for war crimes issues, said Washington wanted to engage more with the world's first permanent war crimes court -- even though any debate about the United States joining the court could be many years away.

"Our government has now made the decision that Americans will return to engagement at the ICC," Rapp told a news conference in Nairobi, adding that this was consistent with a shift towards greater engagement that started in 2005.

The United States signed the ICC treaty when U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's husband Bill was president, but it was never ratified by Congress. Clinton's successor as president, George Bush, later rejected the idea of joining the court.

Secretary of State Clinton said during a visit to Kenya in August that it was a "great regret" the United States was not yet a full ICC signatory.

"We are not a ratified state. The question of whether the United States would move forward on that is still, I think, many years away," Rapp told reporters in the Kenyan capital.

"But we certainly are looking to engage with the ICC to ensure that in places where there are no other avenues for accountability that it will be an effective instrument for ensuring that individuals are brought to justice," he said.

The court has jurisdiction only over crimes committed after July 1, 2002, in countries that have ratified its treaty.

With the addition of the Czech Republic, 110 countries have now ratified the Rome statute. Absent from the list are the United States, Russia, China and Israel.

Rapp said he would be leading the U.S. delegation attending the Assembly of States Parties (ASP) on Nov. 18-26 in The Hague. The ASP is the ICC's management oversight and legislative body. One factor behind Washington's decision not to ratify the treaty was concern that U.S. officials or servicemen and women could risk ICC investigation for their roles in wars.

"There remain concerns about the possibility that the United States, upon whom a great deal of the world relies for security, and its service members might be subject to politically-inspired prosecutions," Rapp said.

Fort Hood shooting: Nidal Malik Hasan sought prosecutions for 'war crimes confessions'

by Nick Allen (Telegraph UK)

Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the Fort Hood gunman, had sought military prosecutions against soldiers he claimed confessed "war crimes" to him during counselling sessions.

Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, last threatened to pursue prosecutions against other soldiers on Nov 2.

Two days later he went for extra target practice at a shooting range where he bought 10 targets and fired more than 200 rounds.

He also closed his bank safety deposit box, telling a bank worker: "You'll never see me again." The day after that he went on a murderous rampage at Fort Hood, America's largest military installation, killing 13 people and wounding around 30.

Investigators believe his inability to get Army authorities to pursue what he claimed was wrongdoing in Iraq and Afghanistan may have contributed to his decision to carry out the massacre.

A federal investigator told ABC News: "The Army may not want to admit it, and you may not hear much about it, but it was very big for him." Hasan was understood to have made inquiries of superiors whether he was able to provide evidence of alleged "war crimes" he had learned about in his work as a psychiatrist.

He signed emails to military prosecutors "Praise Be to Allah," according to ABC News.

13 VS. 2,000,000 -- Fort Hood Shootings a Shocker...Why Not U.S. War Crimes?

Ted Rall writes:

The American military has killed roughly two million people in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001. Those attacks were illegal--no declaration of war, no UN mandate--and are largely recognized as such by the American public. Many of the victims were killed with chemical and radioactive weapons, and some while under torture. In other words, these are crimes--some of the biggest mass murders in human history.

There are no angry editorials. The illegal wars, instead of being brought to an end, are being ramped up. The crimes--yes, including the torture--continues. But it's OK--as long as it doesn't happen here in the United States. It's OK to rain death on Pakistanis using drone planes...gotta spare those precious American lives!

Mass murder is shocking when the victims are Americans; it's doubly shocking when it happens in America.

Thirteen soldiers die in Texas and it's all we talk about. Two million die in Afghanistan and Iraq and we don't notice and we don't even want to hear about it. Only 12 percent of Americans aged 18 to 24 can find Afghanistan on a map.

Read the whole ICH article.

Afghanistan Civilians Victims of War Crimes

.

Ajmal Samadi, director of Afghanistan Rights Monitor:

"Thousands of civilians have been killed by warring parties over the past few years but not a single individual has been convicted of crimes against humanity or war crimes."

Navi Pillay, the UN high commissioner on human rights:

"Civilian casualties continue to mount, with hundreds killed every year by armed anti-government elements, government forces, and international forces carrying out both air strikes and ground assaults."

"The failure to pursue a credible transitional justice strategy including holding to account those responsible for the gravest of crimes over more than three decades of war, and the climate of impunity created thereby, is a significant factor in the challenging political context and growing insecurity that now envelope Afghanistan."

Read Afghanistan: Over 2,000 civilians killed in first 10 months of 2009

click to on image to enlarge

Goldstone and Gaza

By Jimmy Carter

November 06, 2009 "New York Times" -- Published: November 5, 2009 -- Judge Richard Goldstone and the United Nations fact-finding mission on the Gaza conflict have issued a report about Gaza that is strongly critical of both Israel and Hamas for their violations of human rights. On Wednesday, a special meeting of the U.N. General Assembly began a debate on whether to refer the report to the Security Council.

In January 2009 rudimentary rockets had been launched from Gaza toward nearby Jewish communities, and Israel had wreaked havoc with bombs, missiles, and ground invading forces. Judge Goldstone’s claim is that they are both guilty of “crimes against humanity.” Predictably, both the accused parties have denounced the report as biased and inaccurate.

It is good to remember that Judge Goldstone, from South Africa, is one of the world’s most widely respected jurists, with an impeccable record of wisdom, honesty and integrity. He is a devout Jew and has long been known as a fervent defender of Israel’s right to peace and security.

In April 2008 I personally visited Sderot and Ashkelon, Israeli communities near enough to have been hit by rockets fired from within Gaza. While there, I condemned these indiscriminate attacks on civilians as acts of terrorism, and I consider their condemnation by Judge Goldstone to be justified....Read more.