Why We Are Against the War To reject war is not to "turn the other cheek," as pacifism has been caricatured. It is, in the present instance, to act in ways that do not imitate the terrorists. -Howard Zinn This War is Illegal Lack of evidence: The evidence gathered against Bin Laden was never presented to the American public. Meanwhile, the document put forth by Tony Blair clearly states on top "This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Usama Bin Laden in a court of law." [source: Blair's dossier]. U.S. as the vigilante state: Even if there is enough evidence against Bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda network to convict them in a court of law -- which is likely -- (for instance, if the recent video is proven to be true), the debate still remains whether the United States has the right to just bomb and kill without any judicial process. The U.S. is setting a precedence for any nation to assassinate people they consider to be their enemies without having to prove their guilt. Israel is already using that as an excuse to increase their attacks on Palestinians. All enemies in a war should be subject to the Geneva convention on treatment of POWs, which does not allow summary executions in the field. The Geneva convention applied to Nazis in WWII, but it doesn't apply to enemies in the US-led war? It is important to emphasize that we are not defending Bin Laden or the Al-Qaeda in any way -- but we oppose the way the United States has chosen to deal with the terrorists. To quote Albert and Shalom of Z-magazine: "if, when a vigilante mob tries to lynch someone, it turns out that their suspect actually was guilty, that doesn't make the mob's actions any less vigilante." This war violates international law: President Bush's declaration of war was illegal because it overrides international law which the United States, as a democratic society and member of the United Nations, is bound to uphold. The United Nations Security Council Resolutions passed after the September 11 attacks do not justify a declaration of war against the Taliban government or Al-Qaeda. Furthermore, the US right to self-defense under UN Charter provides the US with the right to defend itself only during attack, not in retaliation for attack. In fact, international law requires that the United States take its case to the UN Security Council just as Nicaragua did when it was attacked by US-backed Contras. It is unfortunate that the United States, having been left as the only superpower in the world, decides to take matters into its own hands with total disregard for international law. Related Links: Legal issues arising from the war in Afghanistan and related anti-terrorism efforts, a Q&A by Human Rights Watch. Legal Analysis: US campaign against Afghanistan, No self-defense under international law - by Brian J. Foley There are no clear goals or end to this war: First we were told that we were going to fight terrorists in Afghanistan. Of course, we were never presented with a real definition of "terrorist" and nor do we really know who the enemy is. Now the Taliban have collapsed (even though that wasn't really our aim), Bin Laden cannot be found and we don't really have a report of the terrorists we were going to capture. So, the Bush administration plans on expanding the war to other countries. The United States has become the Rogue Nation out to get rid of nations "with blood on their hands", with total disregard for international law and state boundaries. Not to mention that, at the same time, we are supporting regimes like Saudi Arabia where women's conditions are worse than under the Taliban regime and where religious and political freedom are absent. Any just war should be declared abiding by international law and with very clear goals. Related Links: Can anything stop the US killing spree? by Justin Podur (December 8, 2001) History of US foreign policy "Why do they hate us?" -- This question has been answered by the Bush administration stating that "they" hate us for our democracy and freedom. The real answer is much more complex than that. First of all, it should be pointed out that people in the Middle East (or any other region in the world affected by the effects of US foreign policy) do not hate "us" the people; they hate the government of the United States, and remarkably, they often have no difficulty differentiating between the two. (We are not talking about fundamentalists of course.) More importantly, we have to realize that the history of US foreign policy around the world, its unconditional support for brutal dictatorial regimes and a great number of CIA coverups have all contributed to the anti-US feelings among the people. When the people of a subjugated nation see the government of the United States backing their dictators responsible for murders, tortures and disappearances, it is only natural for them to see the US government as an unwanted force in their region. You can live with your head buried in the sand, believe that they hate us for our democracy and not try to find out the real reasons for the animosity against the US -- but that would only allow our policies to remain the same, bringing about more suffering in other nations and breeding more anti-American sentiment. We believe that the United States should seriously reconsider the militarist path it has adopted for decades, and redirect the US foreign policy towards a path to global justice. Related Links: The United States and Middle East: Why do they hate us? by Stephen R. Shalom This War will not solve the terrorist threat The unilateral US military response will most likely worsen the possibility of additional terrorism on US soil. If the people in Middle East viewed the US as a bully backing up their dictatorial regimes, how would they feel after we have caused the death of more than 3,000 civilians in Afghanistan? Not only the war does not solve the terrorism problem, but it can only add fuel to an already burning fire. Military involvement will not be able to eradicate a network of terrorists with centers in about 50 countries,as has been claimed by the administration. The human toll One thing is important to remember: The war was supposed to be against terrorism. Yet, after months of continuous bombings, the main terrorists behind the Sept. 11 attacks have not been captured yet thousands of Afghani civilians have been murdered -- Afghani people who had absolutely nothing to do with the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Are we arrogant enough to believe that an American life is worth more than an Afghani one? Related Links: By any standard, this is a war against Afghans, by Sonali Kolhatkar Civilian Victims of United States' Aerial Bombing in Afghanistan: more than 3,700 dead "Now, for the first time, a systematic independent study has been carried out into civilian casualties in Afghanistan by Marc Herold, a US economics professor at the University of New Hampshire. Based on corroborated rports from aid agencies, the UN, eyewitnesses, TV stations, newspapers and news agencies around the world, Herold estimates that at least 3,767 civilians were killed by US bombs between October 7 and December 10. That is an average of 62 innocent deaths a day - and an even higher figure than the 3,234 now thought to have been killed in New York and Washington on September 11." [Read full dossier] Related Links: The Innocent Dead in a Coward's War - by Seumas Milne [source: the Guardian] Life during Wartime: Destroying Afghanistan to save it - [source: San Francisco Bay Guardian] Cluster bombs and stray missiles The Pentagon claims that they have made "extraordinary efforts" to limit collateral damage, yet the reports on the number of civilians who have died in Afghanistan clearly show how misleading these claims are [source: Prof. Herold's report]. "Smart bombs" routinely miss their targets but the more horrific effects are due to the use of cluster bombs, and the unexploded yellow "bomblets", add to the risk to civilians. Related Links: Cluster Bombs: The Civilian Impact by Anthony Arnove Bombings exacerbate humanitarian crisis Related Links: Hunger Spin: Christian Aid has accused the government spin machine of trying to brace people for loss of life during the brutal winter in Afghanistan without having to take any responsibility for it. Isn't that good that we got rid of the Taliban? The living conditions under the fundamentalist regime of the Taliban were horrendous and the toppling of the Taliban was probably a good outcome for Afghanistan. However, if we wanted to remove the Taliban from power: We should not have supported the Taliban in the first place. The United States and the CIA supported the Taliban even after the Soviet military had left Afghanistan in the 80s [source: BBC film on Afghanistan; BBC America]. Why did we help them gain power in the first place? We should have announced the demise of the Taliban regime as the main aim of the "war" -- yet the attacks on Afghanistan were not to topple the Taliban but to supposedly eradicate the terrorist network. There is a distinction! Finally, even if we wanted to attack the Taliban, it would have been illegal under international law, which does not allow a country to simply declare war on another one without following the legal means through the United Nations Security Council and at the risk of killing civilians. (Remember that Iraq had no right to attack Kuwait; similarly, the United States has no right to attack another government simply because they don't like them.) Related Links: Fighting the wrong war by Jonathan Steele (December 11, 2001) [source: The Guardian UK] Bush policy: Militarism not Diplomacy or "The Taliban are guilty: they could have handed over Bin Laden" Well, actually, on October 5th (two days before the bombardments began), the Taliban amabassador to Pakistan said "we are prepared to try him if America provides solid evidence of Osama bin Laden's involvement in the attacks on New York and Washington". On October 16th, the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden for trial in a country other than the US without asking to see evidence first [source: the Guardian UK]. In both cases, the US refused. President Bush rejected the offer as "non-negotiable" and never halted the bombing. [other sources: Washington Post; CNN] "President Bush rejected an offer from Afghanistan's ruling Taliban to turn over suspected terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden to a neutral third coutnry yesterday as an eighth day of bombing made clear that military coercion, not diplomacy, remains the crux of U.S. policy toward the regime." - excerpt from Washington Post. Were the Taliban sincere? How would we know since we never even attempted to find out? Related Links: No Negotiations? -- by Justin Podur (October 30, 2001) -- [source: Z magazine] What would be the alternative to a US-led war? The Green Party believes that the solution to ending terrorism is not a "war on terrorism," but rather a clear, consistent, and step-wise adherence to the rule of law which is inextricably linked to a profound shift in our foreign policy away from one of militarism and unchecked self-interest and toward one of humanitarian aid and social justice. Read the full statement and recommendations: Seeking Justice for Acts of Terrorism, by the Green Party of the United States, December 19, 2001 Related Links: An alternative to the U.S. employment of military force, by Michael Ratner, Center for constitutional rights. Why are we really in Afghanistan? Oil There is enough evidence to show that the main US interest in Afghanistan is the projected oil pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan, through Afghanistan and a desire to establish a power base in Central Asia. Related Links: Pipeline politics: oil, gas and the US interest in Afghanistan by Richard Tanter The future of Afghanistan Northern Alliance and the King The Interim government is supposed to consist of Northern Alliance leaders and the deposed king of Afghanistan. Have you wondered who these people are? The Northern Alliance were part of the Mujaheddin who fought against the Soviet military along with the Taliban. The country was then caught in a civil war with the two Mujaheddin factions fighting each other. Related Links: The king of Greater Afghanistan by Tariq Ali (November 30, 2001) [source: The Guardian UK] What about the women? If we were really worried about the condition of women in Afghanistan, we would have made sure they were better represented in the talks in Bonn. And not only from the Northern Alliance or Islamic groups, but secular and minority women as well. And if we really cared about the plight of women, would we be supporting Saudi Arabia, where the condition of women is just as bad (if not worse) than under Taliban rule? Related Links: See a number of reports on women in Afghanistan. Rebuilding Afghanistan Related Links: Rebuilding Afghanistan? by William Blum Top | To Issue Campaigns