U.S. terror war 'over-reaction,' top judge says

[paineinthearse]

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1105917010890&call_page=TS_World&call_pageid=968332188854&call_pagepath=News/World&pubid=968163964505&StarSource=email&DPL=IvsNDS%2f7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes

Jan. 17, 2005. 07:03 AM


ADIL BRADLOW/AP FILE PHOTO
Judge Richard Goldstone was first chief prosecutor at the war crimes tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

U.S. terror war 'over-reaction,' top judge says
Gives criminals special status
Osgoode Hall hosts rights forum


OLIVIA WARD
FEATURE WRITER

The American-led war on terrorism is a threat to international justice and a challenge to the rule of law in the 21st century, says one of the world's most eminent jurists. "Sept. 11 led to a major overreaction by politicians in many countries," said Richard Goldstone, the first chief prosecutor at the war crimes tribunals for former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. In dictatorships their actions don't matter, because we don't expect any respect for human rights. But in a democracy we are handing victory to terrorists if we change our way of life and abandon human rights."

<snip>

"International criminal justice didn't exist before World War II, but now it's a huge industry," he said. "The use of national and international courts, and the creation of the International Criminal Court are tremendous forward steps. Canada should get much credit for leading the movement to create the court." But, said Goldstone, since September, 2001, the international justice system and the rule of law have been weakened by the actions of governments joining a "war on terror." The U.S. in particular has declared suspects "unlawful combatants" and detained them without trial, as well as deporting them to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and Middle Eastern countries where torture is routinely used. "Terrorism must be fought for what it is, that is, criminality. To use the analogy of a real war is to elevate the status of the terrorists, and hand them the advantage," says Goldstone. In a time of crisis, he added, "the role of the judiciary is always weakened, and that is exactly when you need it. Politicians feel that they must do something, and that becomes the basis for unnecessary restrictions. In time of peace, human rights aren't threatened in the same way." However, he said "we must be realistic about terrorism, and not naïve. Enforcement officials need to be given tools that might have been unthinkable not too long ago. Because of modern technology, when criminals make use of the Internet, electronic banking and access to travel, law enforcement must be able to deal with them."

The key to maintaining legality, Goldstone said, is "oversight, preferably judicial. The main thing is that people who are using tools like wiretapping know somebody is watching. If not, you can be absolutely certain there will be abuse." The most obvious examples, he said, are Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, where prisoners have been subjected to humiliation and abuse by U.S. forces, and Guantanamo Bay, where complaints of human rights violations surfaced in spite of attempts to close it to outside scrutiny. The war on Iraq — fought without U.N. authorization — has also damaged the United Nations system as well as the rule of law, Goldstone said. "I don't think anyone wants to go back to pre-World War II days when the powerful did exactly as they wished. It's not in the interest of the democracies, including the United States." The best way of protecting the rule of law, he said, was strengthening the U.N. Security Council, which has the power to authorize the use of force.
"The council must be enlarged to reflect the world community in 2005. It's very important to add voices. But a mechanism should also be found for avoiding a situation where one veto can stop a resolution that is supported by the other nations."

[Briar]

1. "Terrorism must be fought for what it is, that is, criminality.

To use the analogy of a real war is to elevate the status of the terrorists, and hand them the advantage," says Goldstone.

Ah, but then the US couldn't wage pre-emptive war on the rest if the world...

[DukeBlue]

4. A quick thought

An attack on a US warship by an organized group is an act of war.
All the publicity is counter productive. The CIA should be quietly allowed to dispose of the group.

[Redstone]

8. Duke, you're right

If there's a rat's nest in your basement, you exterminate the rats; you don't go out and wipe out the colony of raccoons behind your neighbor's house.

You know what terrorism is? Dropping 2,000-pound bombs into the middle of a densely-populated city in the middle of the night, that's terrorism.

Redstone

[DukeBlue]

9. Agree, loss of focus on their part.(nt)

[uppityperson]

20. Unless your purpose all along was to get rid of the racoons

and the rats just gave you an excuse. And then you lie to all the people-"The RATS are coming, the RATS are coming! Racoon starts with an 'r' and will eat your porched dogfood so lets get rid of them instead!"
bah.

[sweetheart]

25. Unless you want to kill your neighbors

and don't give a toss about racoons, needing rather a reason to justify
what will appear an accidental murder. Then you can steal their house
and build a condo. Heck, you can even co-operate the condo with the
racoons and split the spoils.

That's criminality.... AND that's terrorism.

[leesa]

5. Exactly! There is no justification for what we have done. Afghanistan's

carpet bombing should never have happened and wouldn't have happened if we had a government with half a brain.

[DukeBlue]

11. Afghanistan

I do agree with. It required direct action. Europe is quietly supporting us there because it was the right thing to do.

The powers that be there facilitated the 9/11 and other attacks. They are responsible for our reaction and the resulting deaths.

Iraq on the other hand was a poor choice. It gained us nothing and costs us daily.

[LynnTheDem]

22. The Taleban didn't attack us on 911, and the world opposed our attacking

Afghanistan.

World opinion opposes the attack on Afghanistan
Stirling Media Research Institute, University of Stirling
21 November 2001

According to Tony Blair and George Bush respectively, 'world opinion' and the 'collective will of the world' supported the attack on Afghanistan. Yet analysis of international opinion polls shows that with only three exceptions majorities in all countries polled have opposed the policy of the US and UK governments. Furthermore there have been consistent majorities against the current action in the UK and sizeable numbers of the US population had reservations about the bombing.

The biggest poll of world opinion was carried out by Gallup International in 37 countries in late September (Gallup International 2001). It found that apart from the US, Israel and India a majority of people in every country surveyed preferred extradition and trial of suspects to a US attack. Clear and sizeable majorities were recorded in the UK (75%) and across Western Europe from 67% in France to 87% in Switzerland. Between 64% (Czech Republic) and 83 % (Lithuania) of Eastern Europeans concurred as did varying majorities in Korea, Pakistan, South Africa and Zimbabwe. An even more emphatic answer obtained in Latin America where between 80% (Panama) and 94% (Mexico) favoured extradition. The poll also found that majorities in the US and Israel (both 56%) did not favour attacks on civilians.

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/TerrorInUSA/Polls.asp

[DukeBlue]

23. The Taliban

Provided a base of operations for Osama bin Laden to plan and execute multiple attacks against US interests.

An attack on a Capital warship (USS Cole) has been an act of war since navies existed. By choosing to protect Osama rather than hand him over the Taliban choose their fate.

Polls or not there are EU and other nation's forces active in Afghanistan. NATO resources are in use there.

Polls are worthless, I spent years learning statistical analysis and can vouch for the ease of swinging data. So I tend to ignore polls from any source.

I support the war in Afghanistan. That is all that counts for me.

[LynnTheDem]

26. Then AMERICA "provided a base of operations"

Didn't we. Considering that several of the hijackers had been living in the US for years; considering that the lead hijacker graduated from a US university.

And by the way, the Taleban offered to hand OBL over on a show of proof of guilt.

EXACTLY what Canada and America have for laws of extradition; show proof, THEN we hand over people accused of crimes.

NATO et al were in Afghanistan AFTER bush's attacks.

But hey, as long it's good enough for YOU.

[DukeBlue]

27. That

is my standard. I really find it is easier to come to my own conclusions.

I guess the video where he said he did it and was really happy about it doesn't count as proof. The only government that recognized them was Pakistan.

America has open borders, I work with people from all over. Unless we close the borders and disallow foreigners, like Saudi Arabia, that statement can always be made. BTW it works for all of western Europe as well. I believe Atta had a degree from a German university. Does that make Germany complicit?

NATO supported it from the inception by loaning resources to cover our assets in transit and in operations. Like AWACS. They are on the ground now.

[LynnTheDem]

28. Incorrect info is your standard?

That only Pakistan recognized the Taleban as the government of Afghanistan? Check that out, because in fact that's not correct.

Afghanistan also has open borders. We still have no proof that OBL was responsible for the 911 attacks, let alone that the Taleban were aware of it if he was.

In this country, proof is usually established first, not surmised.

The UN Security Council has never given authorization for bush's war on Afghanistan.

You are free to incorrectly believe the world supported bush's war against Afghanistan; the fact of the matter is the world did not support it.

Who attacked Afghanistan? The USA...the UK...Australia. Same 3 war criminals who attacked Iraq. And then bush got "support" from his "coalition";

-Canada: about 2,500 troops (mostly commandos), six ships and six aircraft.

-Germany: approximately 2,250 troops including special forces, naval vessels, NBC cleanup teams.

-Australia: about 300 SAS troops, air-to-air refueling tankers, Navy frigates, two Orion electronic intelligence gathering aircraft, and F/A-18 fighter aircraft for Diego Garcia.

-Denmark: six F-16 fighters.

-Norway: six F-16 fighters, logistic teams, mine clearance teams, a commando group and C-130 transports.

-Bahrain: Naval vessels.

-New Zealand: 50 Special Air Service soldiers, two C-130 Hercules.

-Japan, in its first military deployment since World War II, contributed naval support for non-combat reinforcement of the operation.

-Romania: 25 military police and a C-130 transport aircraft.

Oh yeah that's some "world support".

NATO went in as peacekeepers on a humanitarian mission. AFTER the 3 WarCriminals had attacked Afghanistan. They were not involved with the actual attacks on Afghanistan.

As with Iraq, bush's war on Afghanistan was planned long before September 11, 2001.

And, as with everything bush touches, Afghanistan is a total mess, 4 years later.

[riverwalker]

2. great article

"Terrorism must be fought for what it is, that is, criminality. To use the analogy of a real war is to elevate the status of the terrorists, and hand them the advantage," says Goldstone.

[Spazito]

3. Excellent article, thanks for the link...

It truly is time for countries, including Canada, to stand up and call the US invasion and occupation and the torture perpetrated upon the Iraqi detainees what it is, war crimes.

I also believe the UN needs to do away with the veto powers of the 5 countries that currently have that power. It has weakened the United Nations and it is now time for change.

[chicagojoe]

6. This guy sounds pretty smart.

Maybe he will be the judge at the BushCorp. trial.

[proudbluestater]

7. I hear echoes of John Kerry in that speech.

"Terrorism must be fought for what it is, that is, criminality. To use the analogy of a real war is to elevate the status of the terrorists, and hand them the advantage," says Goldstone.

Which is EXACTLY what John Kerry stated when he said terrorism should be seen as a law enforcement problem. AMEN, thanks John. Thanks, Judge Richard Goldstone.

Now let's see somebody in the International Court STEP UP and stop the madness being committed in OUR name.

[Demeter]

10. Sorry, But It Would Take A War

something on the order of the war against Nazi Germany--Europe and Asia invading and conquering the fascist US regime, laying down martial law, prosecuting the war criminals, instituting a latter-day Marshall plan to reconstruct the economy, and maybe even giving US a Japanese-style Constitution.

Either that, or a second Civil War. I don't see much chance of the BFEE letting the country go after 8 years, and Death is not the major player it used to be (after all, Cheney is still alive).

[DukeBlue]

12. Overreaction?

Both candidates were going to continue the war in Iraq (regretfully) and continue to build US power.

Europe has no interest in invading.
The sequence of events you brought up would kill millions of people.

[Demeter]

14. There Will Come a Tipping Point

if change does not start at home, it will come from outside.

The economic lines have already been drawn in the sand, and the battle begun. But I don't think that economics is a big enough lever to drive the GOP out of its death spiral.

There will come a point when the US behavior is so outrageous, and the country so weakened by the depravity of the regime, that someone will invade us, and it will be a cakewalk.

[DukeBlue]

15. I agree with the change at home

part. People will get tired of the bullshit and vote differently. Just like they did after Regan and Bush 1.

However an invasion of the us would take resources no one has. Consider getting an invasion force here. Consider the 3000 megatons of online nuclear weapons in our arsenal. That is sufficent to kill everyone in Russia, Europe, and China in an afternoon. 18 Ohio class subs, ICBM complexes, naval resources, air resources. Consider global economic collapse and thermonuclear war.

Europe, China, and Russia have no interest in a shooting war with us. The results would be death on a scale not witnessed by mankind.

Simply put your last point is not feasible.

[Demeter]

18. Just Because We've Had Elections in the Past

(until recently, that is) I am not counting on them happening any longer. Look to Rome if you don't think it possible.

I don't know the time frame, but every day BushCo is in business, we get that much closer to it.

[DukeBlue]

24. We have had

many many elections spanning hundreds of years. Elections after civil wars, world wars, and scandal. Boss Tweed comes to mind.

I don't like GW but don't think the barbarians are at the gate yet.

Different views.

[Just Me]

19. If economic war doesn't slow them down,...I do believe the world will

join together to restrain any nation that seeks to control the globe through the "rule of force and destruction" but only as a last resort.

That's not to say the world would bring such restraint on this continent since restraint is against forces being spread to other territories.

[TahitiNut]

13. This is precisely my attitude since 10am on 9/11, and before!

The methods chosen by the Bushoilini Regime demonstrate their complicity, not their legitimacy.

The 1993 WTC bombing criminals were caught and prosecuted.
The Oklahoma City bombing criminals were caught and prosecuted.

The Bushoilini Regime has 'doused' an arson fire with gasoline. They're acting complicitly with the arsonists.

[Magmadona]

17. Let the CIA do what?

The United States can't claim to be at war, winning a war, gathering intel or making peace right now for a few reasons..

Terrorism has no native country or central headquarters; there is no defined target and reason for being attacked very depending on the goals of the aggressor or the victim. That’s why to simply define terrorism is so hard and that’s exactly why whenever I here the words "war on terror" I get a bit discussed because rather stupid people believe we can kill the terrorist through violent action. That’s exactly what fuels terrorism over-reaction to an event or misconduct on the part of a person or powerhouse (US). Terrorist don't have time-lines and training periods or events that matter only goals in real time. Common people who see us as a rampant threat to world security along with their own sovereignty will fight back when threatened. That encompasses a lot of people so we can have all the allied nations we want but seeing as we're now deemed the aggressor by the civilians in allied nations we shall never ever ever ever exterminate terrorist/freedom fighters/insurgents/militants because we will never be able to identify who they are. Yet one thing is for certain the bolder we become in our actions the more aggressive those who see us ass a threat will become. Seeing as America really hasn't any idea of what real war on it’s own soil is like, I'm sad to say we aren't anywhere near ready to survive a real terrorist attack here even if Bush says we will win.

Don’t forget like every other Empire it falls because of ignorance on a grand scale and once this happens it will never hold the respect it once had hopefully we
don’t see those day too soon

[yorkiemommie1]

16. kick n/t

[LynnTheDem]

21. You are 100% correct, Judge. Big over-reaction.

American parents murder an average of 3000 American kids EVERY YEAR; but no one in this country worries about that. 19 thugs with $1.99 boxcutters kill 3000 in one year and it's FULL SCALE OUR LIFETIME WAR WAR WAR KILL KILL KILL!!!

bush has already caused the deaths of American men, women & kids to the tune of 1/2 the number killed on September 11, 2001.

But then, 911 was the New Pearl Harbor bush & Co had been hoping for; they HAD to take full advantage of it! And just LOOK at all the great things it's brought bush!

911; the very best thing that ever happened to George W. bush!