The News International, June 23, 2009
PESHAWAR: Six people were killed and several others hurt in a US drone missile attack in South Waziristan on Tuesday.
According to sources, US drones fired three missiles at a house in a village of tehsil Ladha, a stronghold of Taliban commander Baitullah Mehsud. Six people were killed and several others injured in the attack. Security operation is underway in the area against militants.
By John Dugard | The Nation, June 21, 2009
President Obama’s recent speech to the Muslim World failed to address allegations that Israel committed war crimes in Gaza. Palestinians and people throughout the region were shocked at the firepower Israel brought to bear against Gaza’s civilians and do not want Palestinians’ ongoing misery to be further ignored. Many were surely waiting to hear from President Obama that the way to peace does not lie through the devastation of civilian life and infrastructure in Gaza.
To date, too little mention has been made of investigations that show there is sufficient evidence to bring charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity against Israel’s political and military leadership for their actions in Gaza. Recently, two comprehensive independent reports have been published on Gaza, and earlier this month a mission mandated by the UN Human Rights Council, and chaired by South African Richard Goldstone, visited Gaza to conduct a further investigation into Israel’s offensive.
On May 4 the United Nations published the findings of an investigation into attacks carried out by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) on UN premises in Gaza. Led by Ian Martin, formerly head of Amnesty International, this investigation found Israel responsible for wrongfully killing and injuring Palestinians on UN premises and destroying property amounting to over $10 million in value. Although this investigation did not address the question of individual criminal responsibility, it is clear that the identified wrongful acts by Israel constituted serious war crimes.
On May 7 the Arab League published the 254-page report of an Independent Fact Finding Committee (IFFC) it had established to examine the legal implications of Israel’s Gaza offensive. This committee, comprising six experts in international law, criminal law and forensic medicine from non-Arab countries, visited Gaza in February. We concluded that the IDF had committed serious war crimes and crimes against humanity.
As the committee`s chairman, I spent five days in Gaza along with the other experts. Our views were deeply influenced by interviews we conducted with victims and by the evidence of destruction of property. We were particularly disturbed by the accounts of cold-blooded killings of civilians committed by some members of the IDF and the Israeli military’s use of white phosphorus in densely populated areas. The devastation was appalling and raised profound doubts in my mind as to the veracity of Israeli officials who claimed this was not a war against the Palestinian people.
The IFFC found that the IDF, in killing some 1,400 Palestinians (at least 850 of whom were civilians), wounding over 5,000 and destroying over 3,000 homes and other buildings, had failed to discriminate between civilian and military targets, terrorized civilians, destroyed property in a wanton manner not justified by military necessity and attacked hospitals and ambulances. It also found that the systematic and widespread killing, injuring and terrorizing of the civilian population of Gaza constituted a crime against humanity.
The IFFC investigated the question whether the IDF was responsible for committing the ‘crime of crimes’ — genocide. Here we concluded that although the evidence pointed in this direction, Israel lacked the intention to destroy the people of Gaza, which must be proved for the crime of genocide. Instead, the IFFC found that the purpose of the offensive was collective punishment aimed at reducing the population to a state of submission. However, the IFFC did not discount the possibility that individual soldiers had acted with the required genocidal intent.
Israel’s argument that it acted in self-defense was rejected, inter alia, on the basis of evidence that Israel’s action was premeditated and not an immediate response to rockets fired by militants and was, moreover, disproportionate. The IFFC found that the IDF’s own internal investigation into allegations of irregularities, which exonerated the IDF, was unconvincing because it was not conducted by an independent body and failed to consider Palestinian evidence.
The IFFC also examined the actions of Palestinian militants who fired rockets indiscriminately into southern Israel. We concluded that these actions constituted war crimes and that those responsible committed the war crimes of indiscriminate attacks on civilians and the killing, wounding and terrorization of civilians.
The past twenty years have brought important developments in international law in respect to accountability for international crimes. Yet Israel has possibly secured impunity for itself by failing to become a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Nevertheless, its actions may still be judged by the court of public opinion.
A bold Obama speech on Gaza would have ensured that the public is on notice that it’s not business as usual in Washington. Even American allies, such as Israel, should have to answer evidence of serious international crimes. In this way, some measure of accountability may be achieved. With an active American push, a new view of the United States may begin to take shape after eight years of disregard for international and domestic law.
About John Dugard
John Dugard is a professor of law, a former UN special rapporteur on human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and the chairman of the Independent Fact Finding Committee on Gaza. more…
By NANCY A. YOUSSEF | The Miami Herald, June 19, 2009
McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — An internal military investigation into an U.S. airstrike in western Afghanistan acknowledged that U.S. forces may have killed as many as 86 civilians and said the military needs to re-examine its rules to reduce future civilian casualties.
The report, which suggests that troops need a refresher on how to best use airpower, how to avoid civilian casualties and how to communicate with the Afghan civilians they’re being sent to protect, will probably do little to endear the coalition with the Afghans, a cornerstone of the U.S. counterinsurgency plan.
And its issuance raises questions about whether the U.S. should use a B-1B bomber – an expensive Cold War-era supersonic bomber originally designed to penetrate the former Soviet Union’s airspace and drop nuclear weapons – to rout out Taliban hiding among Afghan civilians.
The airstrike, in the western Farah province, has drawn the ire of local and national leaders, strained relations between the U.S. and Afghanistan and become an issue in August elections there. Afghan investigations have placed the civilian death toll as high as 140.
The report found 26 confirmed civilian casualties but concedes that it is impossible to determine a final number because some were buried before investigators arrived. However, it also cites an investigation by the Afghan Human Rights Commission shortly after the May 4 incident, which found 86 casualties. The report doesn’t say how many suspected Taliban fighters were killed in the offensive.
The eight-hour battle began when Afghan security forces discovered that as many as 300 Taliban were amassing nearby and threatening residents. A nearby U.S. Marine Special Operations team told the Afghan forces they should take a few days and plan an attack, but the Afghans decided to go after the Taliban, the report said, and U.S. forces agreed to be on call in case they needed additional help.
When the Afghans came under attack, the Marines deployed ground troops and eventually four F-18s. Despite that, the report said, “enemy direct fire subsided for a brief period, but never completely.” Those attacks didn’t lead to civilian casualties, it said.
When the fighting didn’t subside, the military decided to deploy B-1B bombers that launched three strikes. The report suggests that the criteria for launching attacks were vague.
The first attack occurred when the bomber “spotted a group of similarly-sized adults moving in a tactical manner – definitively and rapidly in evenly spaced intervals across difficult terrain in the dark – behind the enemy’s front lines. The ground force didn’t receive direct fire from this group at any time while the B-1B crew tracked and targeted them,” the report said.
The second strike took place near Afghan forces and targeted a building where suspected fighters had taken cover. However, no one confirmed whether civilian were inside the structure before the attack was launched, the report said. The third strike occurred inside a village, and again U.S. forces saw fighters run into a structure, but didn’t check if civilians were inside before striking it.
In some instances, forces didn’t follow guidance, and that “resulted in civilian casualties.” The report, however, didn’t recommend curtailing the use of the airstrikes.
The seven recommendations included improving coordination with non-governmental organizations, improving investigative skills, a review of U.S. rules governing airstrikes and better strategic communications.
“There are additional changes that I think that we’re going to clearly have to make to ensure that we do absolutely everything to make sure civilian casualties are eliminated, if possible, or certainly minimized in every situation,” said Navy Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on Thursday.
Pentagon leaders had wavered about whether to release the report’s findings.
Although the report has been complete and approved since June 8, U.S. military officials decided to not release it until late Friday. The military didn’t release a video of part of the incident, despite a promise from Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. Central Command, shortly after the incident.
China View, June 19, 2009
 |
|
Afghan President Hamid Karzai (R) and NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer attend a joint press conference at the Presidential Palace in Kabul on June 17, 2009. (Xinhua Photo) |
BEIJING, June 19 — The visiting NATO’s Secretary General Jaap de Hope Scheffer on Wednesday announced sending additional troops to Afghanistan ahead of the second presidential election after the fall of Taliban regime set for August 20 this year.
Soundbite:Scheffer, NATO’s Secretary General “We are bringing extra forces into Afghanistan for a protection role between 8,000 and 10,000, if you want to know the numbers of whom will come on temporary bases to Afghanistan.”
The outgoing NATO chief described Afghanistan’s coming election as“very important” for both Afghans and the international community, saying ISAF along with Afghan security forces would do its best to help Afghans have a transparent election in a peaceful environment.
Scheffer, during his last tour to Afghanistan as NATO Secretary General, once against repeated the military alliance commitment towards the post-Taliban Afghanistan.
“We would be alongside Afghan people and we will support Afghan people,” he stressed.
The NATO top diplomat also expressed concern over civilian casualties during military operations against anti-government militants, saying “we will do everything which is in our power to prevent loss of innocent life, loss of innocent civilian life.” He asserted that the international forces would do its best to minimize civilian casualties.
Repeated harming non-combatants has risen anti-U.S. forces resentment in Afghanistan while President Karzai and Afghan citizens at large have repeatedly asked the international forces to protect civilian life as it would not serve the U.S.-led war on terror.
Xinhua News Agency correspondents reporting from KABUL.
Despite predictions that the “emergency” war funding bill would face a battle in the Senate similar to the one it saw in the House of Representatives, the Senate overwhelmingly passed the bill with no new alterations, at a vote of 91-5.
Earlier in the week the House of Representative passed the bill 226-202, and that was only after weeks of haranguing Democratic Congressmen who opposed the bill to change their vote in the name of loyalty to President Obama. Even then, many expressed dissatisfaction with the bill.
Not so in the Senate, where there was considerable complaining that the bill contained a lot of superfluous funding for things that had nothing to do with the war but the only serious challenge came when Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) tried to strip a $1 billion provision. When that failed, what remained of the opposition seemed to dry up entirely. The five no votes included 3 Republicans, Sens. DeMint, Enzi and Coburn, Independent Sen. Sanders, and Democratic Sen. Feingold.
That $1 billion was set aside for a “cash for clunkers” program to subsidize the purchase of new cars. The measure was unsurprisingly praised by the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers. Other complaints, including the massive loan guarantee to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) had been expected to be a major issue, as it was in the House of Representatives, but at the end of the day it doesn’t appear to have cost the bill any votes.
US drones launched an apparent attack on a compound near South Waziristan’s capital of Wana today, killing at least 13 people and wounding an unknown number of others. Four missiles were said to be fired at a compound belonging to a suspected commander in the Tehreek-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP).
The initial strike on the compound only killed one person, according to residents. The bulk of the toll came when locals rushed to the scene to help rescue the wounded trapped under the rubble, and the drone fired more missiles on them. It is unclear how many of the slain were civilians, but given the nature of the secondary strike it seems likely to be significant.
It is the second US drone strike this week, and comes at a time when the Pakistani military is just beginning what is being touted as a massive military offensive against the Mehsud tribe in South Waziristan and the TTP in general.
After a month of military buildup and seeing the destruction wrought in the Swat Valley by a similar venture, the bulk of South Waziristan has been emptied out as tribesmen in rural areas flock to the comparative safety of camps in the nearby North-West Frontier Province (NWFP). The remaining residents are generally centered around the region’s few towns which likely explains why the compound, so near to Wana, still had occupants.
Peace and Justice Post 
Obama’s Undeclared War Against Pakistan Continues, Despite His Attempt to Downplay It
June 22, 2009In a new interview, Obama said he has “no intention” of sending US troops into Pakistan. But US troops are already in the country and US drones attack Pakistan regularly.
By Jeremy Scahill, RebelReports, June 22, 2209
Three days after his inauguration, on January 23, 2009, President Barack Obama ordered US predator drones to attack sites inside of Pakistan, reportedly killing 15 people. It was the first documented attack ordered by the new US Commander in Chief inside of Pakistan. Since that first Obama-authorized attack, the US has regularly bombed Pakistan, killing scores of civilians. The New York Times reported that the attacks were clear evidence Obama “is continuing, and in some cases extending, Bush administration policy.” In the first 99 days of 2009, more than 150 people were reportedly killed in these drone attacks. The most recent documented attack was reportedly last Thursday in Waziristan. Since 2006, the US drone strikes have killed 687 people (as of April). That amounts to about 38 deaths a month just from drone attacks.
The use of these attack drones by Obama should not come as a surprise to anyone who followed his presidential campaign closely. As a candidate, Obama made clear that Pakistan’s sovereignty was subservient to US interests, saying he would attack with or without the approval of the Pakistani government. Obama said if the US had “actionable intelligence” that “high value” targets were in Pakistan, the US would attack. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, echoed those sentiments on the campaign trail and “did not rule out U.S. attacks inside Pakistan, citing the missile attacks her husband, then-President Bill Clinton, ordered against Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998. ‘If we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured,’ she said.”
Last weekend, Obama granted his first extended interview with a Pakistani media outlet, the newspaper Dawn:
Responding to a question about drone attacks inside Pakistan’s tribal zone, Mr Obama said he did not comment on specific operations.
‘But I will tell you that we have no intention of sending US troops into Pakistan. Pakistan and its military are dealing with their security issues.’
There are a number of issues raised by this brief response offered by Obama. First, the only difference between using these attack drones and using actual US soldiers on the ground is that the soldiers are living beings. These drones sanitize war and reduce the US death toll while still unleashing military hell disproportionately on civilians. The bottom line is that the use of drones inside the borders of Pakistan amounts to the same violation of sovereignty that would result from sending US soldiers inside the country. Obama defended the attacks in the Dawn interview, saying:
“Our primary goal is to be a partner and a friend to Pakistan and to allow Pakistan to thrive on its own terms, respecting its own traditions, respecting its own culture. We simply want to make sure that our common enemies, which are extremists who would kill innocent civilians, that that kind of activity is stopped, and we believe that it has to be stopped whether it’s in the United States or in Pakistan or anywhere in the world.”
Despite Obama’s comments about respecting Pakistan “on its own terms,” this is how Reuters recently described the arrangement between Pakistan and the US regarding drone attacks:
U.S. ally Pakistan objects to the U.S. missile strikes, saying they violate its sovereignty and undermine efforts to deal with militancy because they inflame public anger and bolster support for the militants.
Washington says the missile strikes are carried out under an agreement with Islamabad that allows Pakistani leaders to publicly criticise the attacks. Pakistan denies any such agreement.
Pakistan is now the biggest recipient of US aid with the House of Representatives recently approving a tripling of money to Pakistan to about $1.5 billion a year for five years. Moreover, US special forces are already operating inside of Pakistan, along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border in Baluchistan. According to the Wall Street Journal, US Special Forces are:
training Pakistan’s Frontier Corps, a paramilitary force responsible for battling the Taliban and al Qaeda fighters, who cross freely between Afghanistan and Pakistan, the officials said. The U.S. trainers aren’t meant to fight alongside the Pakistanis or accompany them into battle, in part because there will be so few Special Forces personnel in the two training camps.
A senior American military officer said he hoped Islamabad would gradually allow the U.S. to expand its training footprint inside Pakistan’s borders.
In February, The New York Times reported that US forces are also engaged in other activities inside of Pakistan:
American Special Operations troops based in Afghanistan have also carried out a number of operations into Pakistan’s tribal areas since early September, when a commando raid that killed a number of militants was publicly condemned by Pakistani officials. According to a senior American military official, the commando missions since September have been primarily to gather intelligence.
It is clear—and has been for a long time— that the Obama administration is radically expanding the US war in Afghanistan deeply into Pakistan. Whether it is through US military trainers (that’s what they were called in Vietnam too), drone attacks or commando raids inside the country, the US is militarily entrenched in Pakistan. It makes Obama’s comment that “[W]e have no intention of sending US troops into Pakistan” simply unbelievable.
For a sense of how significant US operations are and will continue to be for years and years to come, just look at the US plan to build an almost $1 billion massive US “embassy” in Islamabad, which is reportedly modeled after the imperial city they call a US embassy in Baghdad. As we know very clearly from Iraq, such a complex will result in an immediate surge in the deployment of US soldiers, mercenaries and other contractors.
Share this:
Tags:Pakistan, President Barack Obama, United States, US Predator drones, US troops
Posted in Commentary, imperialism, Pakistan, President Barack Obama, US policy, USA, war, war crimes | Leave a Comment »