- Why are American and NATO troops in Afghanistan?
-
- What is the justification for waging war on a country
of 28 million people?
-
- What justifies Obama's military surge?
-
- Both the media and the US government, in chorus, continue
to point to the 9/11 attacks and the role of Al Qaeda led by "terrorist
mastermind" Osama bin Laden.
-
- The bombing and invasion of Afghanistan is described
as a "campaign" against Islamic terrorists, rather than a war.
-
- To this date, however, there is no proof that Al Qaeda was
behind the 9/11 attacks.
-
- Neither is there evidence that Afghanistan as a Nation
State was behind or any way complicit in the 9/11 attacks.
-
- The Afghan government in the weeks following 9/11, offered
on two occasions to deliver Osama bin Laden to US justice, if there were
preliminary evidence of his involvement in the attacks. These offers were
refused by Washington.
-
- Where was Osama on September 11, 2001?
-
- To this date, Osama bin Laden, the leader of Al Qaeda,
is identified in military documents and official statements of both the
Bush and Obama administrations as the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks.
-
- The Afghan government (the "Taliban regime"
in official documents) is identified as supporting Al Qaeda and providing
refuge to its leader Osama bin Laden inside Afghan territory at the time
of the 9/11 attacks.
-
- On September 10, 2001, according to a CBS news report,
Osama bin Laden had been admitted to a Pakistani military hospital in Rawalpindi.
(CBS Evening News with Dan Rather; CBS, 28 January 2002, See also
Michel Chossudovsky, Where was Osama on September 11, 2001?, Global
Research,11 September 2008):
-
- "DAN RATHER, CBS ANCHOR: As the United states and
its allies in the war on terrorism press the hunt for Osama bin Laden,
CBS News has exclusive information tonight about where bin Laden was
and what he was doing in the last hours before his followers struck the
United States September 11.
-
- This is the result of hard-nosed investigative reporting
by a team of CBS news journalists, and by one of the best foreign correspondents
in the business, CBS`s Barry Petersen. Here is his report.
-
- (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) BARRY PETERSEN, CBS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over):
Everyone remembers what happened on September 11. Here`s the story of what
may have happened the night before. It is a tale as twisted as the hunt
for Osama bin Laden.
-
- CBS News has been told that the night before the September
11 terrorist attack, Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan. He was getting medical
treatment with the support of the very military that days later pledged
its backing for the U.S. war on terror in Afghanistan (CBS, op cit,
emphasis added)
-
- Recovering from his hospital treatment in Rawalpindi
on the 11th of September, how could Osama have coordinated the 9/11
attacks?
-
- How could Afghanistan be made responsible for these attacks
by Al Qaeda? Bin Laden is a national of Saudi Arabia who, according
to CBS News, was not in Afghanistan, but in Pakistan at the time of
the attacks.
-
- The Invasion of Afghanistan: NATO's Doctrine of Collective
Security
-
- The legal argument used by Washington and NATO to invade
Afghanistan was that the September 11 attacks constituted an undeclared
"armed attack" "from abroad" by an unnamed foreign
power, and that consequently "the laws of war" apply, allowing
the nation under attack, to strike back in the name of "self-defense".
-
- The "Global War on Terrorism" was officially
launched by the Bush administration on September 11, 2001. On the following
morning (September 12, 2001), NATO's North Atlantic Council meeting
in Brussels, adopted the following resolution:
-
- "if it is determined that the [September 11, 2001]
attack against the United States was directed from abroad [Afghanistan]
against "The North Atlantic area", it shall be regarded as an
action covered by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty". (emphasis added)
-
- In this regard, Article 5 of the Washington Treaty stipulates
that if:
-
- "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." (NATO,
What is Article 5, NATO Topics - NATO and the Scourge of Terrorism,
accessed 24 November 2009, emphasis added)
-
- "Use of Armed Force" only "If It is Determined..."
-
- There was an "if" in the September 12 resolution.
Article 5 would apply only if it is determined that Afghanistan as a Nation
State was complicit or behind the 9/11 attacks.
-
- In practice, the "if" had already been waved
prior to 9/11. The entire NATO arsenal was already on a war footing. In
military terms, NATO and the US were already in an advanced state of readiness.
Known to military analysts, but never revealed in the Western media, the
implementation of a large scale theater war takes at least one year of
advanced operational planning, prior to launching of an invasion. Using
article 5 of the Wasington Treaty had in all likelihood been contemplated
by military planners, as a ptetext for wagin war, prior to 9/11.
-
- There was no official declaration of war on September
12th. The Alliance waited until 3 days before the invasion to declare war
on Afghanistan, a impoverished country which by no stretch of the imagination
could have launched an attack against a member state of "The North
Atlantic area".
-
- The September 12 resolution of the Atlantic Council required
"determination" and corroborating evidence, that:
-
- 1) Al Qaeda led by Osama bin Laden had ordered the "attack
from abroad" on the United States of America;
-
- 2) The terrorist attacks of 9/11 constituted a bona fide
military operation (under the provisions of Article 5) by an alleged foreign
country (Afghanistan) against a NATO member state, and consequently against
all NATO member states under the doctrine of collective security:
-
- "Article 5 and the case of the terrorist attacks
against the United States: The United States has been the object of brutal
terrorist attacks. It immediately consulted with the other members of the
Alliance. The Alliance determined that the US had been the object of an
armed attack. The Alliance therefore agreed that if it was determined that
this attack was directed from abroad, it would be regarded as covered by
Article 5. NATO Secretary General, Lord Robertson, subsequently informed
the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the Alliance's decision.
-
- Article 5 has thus been invoked, but no determination
has yet been made whether the attack against the United States was directed
from abroad. If such a determination is made, each Ally will then
consider what assistance it should provide. In practice, there will be
consultations among the Allies. Any collective action by NATO will be decided
by the North Atlantic Council. The United States can also carry out independent
actions, consistent with its rights and obligations under the UN Charter.
-
- Allies can provide any form of assistance they deem necessary
to respond to the situation. This assistance is not necessarily military
and depends on the material resources of each country. Each individual
member determines how it will contribute and will consult with the other
members, bearing in mind that the ultimate aim is to "to restore and
maintain the security of the North Atlantic area".
-
- By invoking Article 5, NATO members have shown their
solidarity toward the United States and condemned, in the strongest possible
way, the terrorist attacks against the United States on 11 September.
-
- If the conditions are met for the application of Article
5, NATO Allies will decide how to assist the United States.(Many Allies
have clearly offered emergency assistance). Each Ally is obliged to assist
the United States by taking forward, individually and in concert with other
Allies, such action as it deems necessary. This is an individual obligation
on each Ally and each Ally is responsible for determining what it deems
necessary in these particular circumstances.
-
- No collective action will be taken by NATO until further
consultations are held and further decisions are made by the the North
Atlantic Council. (NATO, NATO Topics - NATO and the Scourge of
Terrorism, accessed 24 November 2009, emphasis added)
-
- The Mysterious Frank Taylor Report
-
- The final decision to invoke Article 5 in relation to
the 9/11 attacks came three weeks later upon the submission to the NATO
Council of a mysterious classified report by a US state Department official
named Frank Taylor. The report was submitted to NATO on October 2nd, 5
days before the commencement of the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan.
-
- Frank Taylor was working in the US State Department.
He had been entrusted in writing up a brief to establish whether the US
"had been attacked from abroad", pursuant to the North Atlantic
Council's resolution of September 12 2001.
-
- US Ambassador at Large and Co-ordinator for Counter-terrorism
Frank Taylor briefed the North Atlantic Council barely on October 2nd,
five days before the commencement of the bombings.
-
- On October 2nd he handed his brief to NATO "on
the results of investigations into the 11 September attacks.... " NATO
- Topic: Terrorism, NATO and the fight against Terrorism, accessed 24 November
2009).
-
- The classified report was not released to the media.
And to this date, to our knowledge, it has remained classified.
-
- NATO's Secretary General Lord Robertson casually summarised
the substance of the Frank Taylor report in a press release:
-
- "This morning, the United States briefed the North
Atlantic Council on the results of the investigation into who was responsible
for the horrific terrorist attacks which took place on September 11.
-
- The briefing was given by Ambassador Frank Taylor, the
United States Department of State Coordinator for Counter-terrorism.
-
- This morning's briefing follows those offered by United
States Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and United States Deputy
Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and illustrates the commitment of
the United States to maintain close cooperation with Allies.
-
- Today's was classified briefing and so I cannot
give you all the details.
-
- Briefings are also being given directly by the United
States to the Allies in their capitals.
-
- The briefing addressed the events of September 11 themselves, the
results of the investigation so far, what is known about Osama bin Laden
and the al-Qaida organisation and their involvement in the attacks and
in previous terrorist activity, and the links between al-Qaida and the
Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
-
- The facts are clear and compelling. The information
presented points conclusively to an al-Qaida role in the September 11 attacks.
-
- We know that the individuals who carried out these attacks
were part of the world-wide terrorist network of al-Qaida, headed by Osama
bin Laden and his key lieutenants and protected by the Taliban.
-
- On the basis of this briefing, it has now been determined
that the attack against the United States on September 11 was directed
from abroad and shall therefore be regarded as an action covered by Article
5 of the Washington Treaty, which states that an armed attack on
one or more of the Allies in Europe or North America shall be considered
an attack against them all.
-
- I want to reiterate that the United States of America
can rely on the full support of its 18 NATO Allies in the campaign against
terrorism." (Lord Robertson, NATO Secretary General, statement to
the NATO Council, State Department, Appendix H, Multinational Response
to September 11 NATO Press http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/10313.pdf,
accessed 24 November 2009, emphasis added)
-
- In other words, 2 days before the actual commencement
of the bombing campaign on October 7, the North Atlantic Council decided,
based on the information provided by Frank Taylor to the Council "that
the attacks were directed from abroad" by Al Qaeda, headed by Osama
bin Laden, thereby requiring an action on the part of NATO under Article
5 of the Washington Treaty ( NATO - Topic: Terrorism, NATO and the
fight against Terrorism, accessed 24 November 2009):
-
- NATO action under article 5, was outlined in an October
4 decision, 3 days before the commencement of the bombings.
-
- Two days later, on 4 October, NATO agreed on eight measures
in support the United States, which were tantamount to a declaration of
war on Afghanstan:
-
- to enhance intelligence sharing and co-operation, both
bilaterally and in appropriate NATO bodies, relating to the threats posed
by terrorism and the actions to be taken against it;
-
- to provide, individually or collectively, as appropriate
and according to their capabilities, [military] assistance to Allies and
other states which are or may be subject to increased terrorist threats
as a result of their support for the campaign against terrorism;
-
- to take necessary measures to provide increased security
for facilities of the United States and other Allies on their territory;
-
- to backfill selected Allied assets in NATO's area of
responsibility that are required to directly support operations against
terrorism;
-
- to provide blanket overflight clearances for the United
States and other Allies' aircraft, in accordance with the necessary air
traffic arrangements and national procedures, for military flights related
to operations against terrorism; to provide access for the United States
and other Allies to ports and airfields on the territory of NATO nations
for operations against terrorism, including for refuelling, in accordance
with national procedures;
-
- that the Alliance is ready to deploy elements of its
Standing Naval Forces to the Eastern Mediterranean in order to provide
a NATO presence and demonstrate resolve; and that the Alliance is similarly
ready to deploy elements of its NATO Airborne Early Warning Force to support
operations against terrorism. NATO - Topic: Terrorism, NATO and the
fight against Terrorism, accessed 24 November 2009 emphasis added)
-
- Press reports of Frank Taylor's brief to the NATO Council
were scanty. The invocation of Article 5, five days before the bombings
commenced, was barely mentioned. The media consensus was: "all roads
lead to Bin Laden" as if bin Laden was a Nation State which had attacked
America.
-
- What stands out are outright lies and fabrications. Moreover,
prior to October 2nd, NATO had no pretext under Article 5 of the Washington
Treaty to intervene militarily in Afghanistan.
-
- The pretext was provided by Frank Taylor's classified
report, which was not made public.
-
- The two UN Security Council resolutions adopted in the
course of September 2001, did not, under any circumstances, provide a justification
for the invasion and illegal occupation of a UN member country of 28 million
people. (see Security Council resolution 1368 (2001) Threats
to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts, Security
Council resolution 1373 (2001) Threats to international peace and
security caused by terrorist acts).
-
-
- UNSC Resolution 1373 (2001) called for prevention and
suppression of terrorist acts, as well suppression of the financing of
terrorism:
-
- "(e) Ensure that any person who participates in
the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts
or in supporting terrorist acts is brought to justice and ensure that,
in addition to any other measures against them, such terrorist acts are
established as serious criminal offences in domestic laws and regulations
and that the punishment duly reflects the seriousness of such terrorist
acts;
-
- ...
-
- "3. Calls upon all States to:
-
- "(a) Find ways of intensifying and accelerating
the exchange of operational information, especially regarding actions or
movements of terrorist persons or networks; forged or falsified travel
documents; traffic in arms, explosives or sensitive materials; use of communications
technologies by terrorist groups; and the threat posed by the possession
of weapons of mass destruction by terrorist groups;
-
- "(b) Exchange information in accordance with international
and domestic law and cooperate on administrative and judicial matters to
prevent the commission of terrorist acts;
-
- "(c) Cooperate, particularly through bilateral and
multilateral arrangements and agreements, to prevent and suppress terrorist
attacks and take action against perpetrators of such acts;
-
- ...
-
- "4. Notes with concern the close connection between
international terrorism and transnational organized crime, illicit drugs,
money-laundering, illegal arms-trafficking, and illegal movement of nuclear,
chemical, biological and other potentially deadly materials, and in this
regard emphasizes the need to enhance coordination of efforts on national,
subregional, regional and international levels in order to strengthen a
global response to this serious challenge and threat to international security;
-
- "5. Declares that acts, methods, and practices of
terrorism are contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations
and that knowingly financing, planning and inciting terrorist acts are
also contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations (excerpts
of UNSC Resolution 1373 (2001, See also UN Press Release SC 7178 SECURITY
COUNCIL UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTS WIDE-RANGING ANTI-TERRORISM RESOLUTION; CALLS
FOR SUPPRESSING FINANCING, IMPROVING INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION, Security
Council, 4385th Meeting, September 2001)
-
- Nowhere in this resolution is there any mention of military
action against a UN member State.
-
- The US led war on Afghanistan, using 9/11 as a pretext
and a justification is illegal and criminal.
-
- The US and NATO heads of state and heads of government
from 2001 to the present are complicit in the launching of a criminal and
illegal war.
|
