Obama with Blood on His Hands (Consortium News)

[Liberation Angel]

Obama with Blood on His Hands

By Nicolas J S Davies
December 2, 2009

Editor’s Note: For many Americans, the promise of the new Obama administration was that finally the United States would reject the neocon concept that America can ignore international law and use indiscriminate violence around the world to assert its interests. That hope was largely snuffed out Tuesday when President Obama gave his hawkish generals and the neocon pundits most of what they wanted by expanding the eight-year-old Afghan War and guaranteeing more violations of the laws of war, as Nicolas J S Davies writes: President Barack Obama carefully avoided describing his decision to dispatch 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan as an "escalation," but that is what he announced.

So what will his decision to pour more troops, weapons and tons of ammunition into this already war-ravaged country really mean, for Americans and for the people of Afghanistan?

On Sept. 4, German forces in Kunduz province in northern Afghanistan called in a U.S. air strike on two fuel tankers that had been captured by "anti-coalition forces" (ACF). German officials knew that there was a crowd of civilians around the tankers helping themselves to a windfall of free fuel, but they called in the air strike anyway. This was a clear violation of the laws of war, which prohibit attacking civilians even when there are believed to be combatants amongst them.

In the aftermath of the attack, it was found that 142 people had been killed, and that the great majority of them were civilians. General Wolfgang Schneiderhan, the Chief of Staff of the German Army, and Franz Josef Jung, who was the Defense Minister at the time, were both forced to resign, and Peter Wichert, the junior civilian official who approved the air strike, was suspended....


More at Link...

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/120209a.html

[Ozymanithrax]

1. U.S. actions in Afghanistan are in accordance with international law...

Since Consortium News can't get the facts right, their opinion is worth the same as Cheney or Rove's.

[Liberation Angel]

2. Suuuuurrrre! Killing civilians is ALWAYS in accordance with international law

:sarcasm:


as for the credibility of consortium news I find their credibility about as high as it gets. Robert Parry is perhaps THE preeminent authority on most of these subjects as a journalist - and he runs the place (and he's a nice guy too).

[Ozymanithrax]

8. International law directs that the military not attack civilians directly..

and reduce as far as possible impact on civilians.

Now, unless you can show me where is is U.S. government policy to order the U.S. Military to knowingly plans and initiates attacks on civilians only, no laws have been broken. I have not seen evidence of that kind of war crime. Until you or Consortium news shows a policy of attacking only civilians with no other military purpose, then Consortium news is lying through their teeth. It is not illegal for civilians to die in a war.

The U.S. entered the war in Afghanistan legally. They continue to engage a Taliban insurgency and elements of Al Qaida legally. The only difference between Consortium news and Dick Cheney is the side of the political coin. They are both willing to lie for political purposes. I find that disgusting from any side.

[Liberation Angel]

9. OKAY , so, since collateral deaths of civilians is accidental it is okay under international law

that is what you believe?

The fact is that the real question of whether a military action violates international law depends on the circumstances.

If YOU believe that indiscriminate killing of civilians when engaged in battle is okay and not in violation of international law, we have different positions.

The argument you make is basically the al qaeda school of thought... killing civilians is oaky as long as it is done in an act of war against the infidels. Flip side of the same coin, your argument.

I do not care whether you think this is okay and the war is legal, I do not believe that it is.

Your claim that consortium news is the other side of some dick cheney coin is just rhetoric.

The differnece is that Cheney et al will KILL civilians and lie while those like Parry et al at Consortium news do there best to STOP the murders.

But whether something violates a law is subjective. In your case you say this is all okay. I do not.

[TexasObserver]

3. Recommend

[Liberation Angel]

4. Thanks - I hate to say it, but I think what is raised here needs to be said and discussed...

civilly and with some degree of seriousness.

People will die in Afghanistan: Americans, Europeans, and lots and lots of Afghanis.

AND the cost in money is, as Michael Moore and Keith Olberman, unacceptable and beyond our means.

I still support Obama on most things, but on this he does and will have innocent blood on his hands -- MUCH innocent blood.

and this escalation is a terrible error in judgment or a terrible sellout to the right wing fascists in our government.

The REAL enemies are domestic: Cheney, Bush, et al. Them and their Saudi and oil and nuclear corporofascist pals...

[TexasObserver]

7. Yes, it's a bad war, no matter who is running it.

[grasswire]

5. sobering

The report noted that war has changed over the past century. Whereas about 86 percent of the people killed in the First World War were actual combatants, 90 percent of those killed in contemporary wars are civilians

[Liberation Angel]

6. Exactly the problem with an escalation IF...

If it is an escalation of aggressive violence.

I can see troops for peaceful or peacekeeping missions (if that is possible) - to protetc civilians.

But since in escalation of military ops MORE civilians will be killed than socalled insurgents, then the cost in innocent lives is unacceptable.

[Liberation Angel]

10. No more unrecs?

Just asking kick...