Why Did a Pakistani-Born American Citizen Want to Kill Americans?

For years, President Hamid Karzai has wanted to give amnesty to members of the Taliban in order to stabilize his country. Currently, he continues to do so, and the American military in Afghanistan is following suit.

Within Afghanistan, the term “Taliban” is code for a loose collection of outright gangsters, former members of the Taliban government now in Karzai’s government, jihadists eager to unseat Karzai, warlords who prefer to control their own region rather than ceding control to Karzai’s corrupt government, and others controlling provinces where Karzai is unpopular.

The United Nations supports the goal of stabilizing the Afghan government and thereby endorses the presence of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) forces, which are pledged to do so. President Barack Obama has never told the American people that its military presence is pursuant to a UN mandate. Instead, Obama has made clear that American troops are in Afghanistan to root out both Al Qaeda and the Taliban, since they are allied. To provide a legal basis for current American military operations in Afghanistan, Obama relies on the Authorization of the Use of Military Force (AUMF) resolution, passed by Congress in 2001.

Meanwhile, Al Qaeda has funded the Taliban in Pakistan to undermine the government in Islamabad. Pakistan claims to be capable of handling the threat, so the UN has not been asked to support military efforts to rid Pakistan of either Al Qaeda or the Taliban. And Congress has never been asked to provide a legal basis for American military action inside Pakistan. Instead, Obama has implicitly invoked AUWF.

When Faisal Shahzad plotted to put a car bomb in Times Square on May 1, some evidence suggests that he was doing so in retaliation. Why? For what?

The apparent answer is retaliation for deaths of hundreds of innocent civilians in Pakistan from drone attacks by the United States.

While George W Bush was president, American drone strikes were taking place in the tribal zones of Pakistan. Some Al Qaeda residences were targeted, but many civilians died in the raids. As reported by a British journalist on May 8, 2010, Shahzad told a Connecticut neighbor in 2008, “They shouldn’t be shooting people from the sky. You know, they should come down and fight.”

Aerial murders of persons outside battlefields are contrary to international law because they are “extrajudicial executions.” Shahzad explicitly accused Bush of being a “war criminal.”

While campaigning for president, Obama pledged that he would authorize military force inside Pakistan if Islamabad were unwilling to hunt down Al Qaeda hiding in Pakistan. Recently, the Pakistani army has been hunting down Al Qaeda and the Taliban on the ground. After becoming president, however, Obama authorized a major increase in aerial attacks inside Pakistan on both Al Qaeda and the Taliban. As a result of faulty CIA intelligence, the United States has again been responsible for murdering hundreds of innocent civilians.

American aerial attacks in Pakistan are conducted by unmanned drones operated by the CIA, not the U.S. military. The Pakistan government has repeatedly condemned CIA drone attacks whenever civilians have been killed. Yet the drones take off from Pakistani air bases, clearly with the approval of the Pakistani government.

Meanwhile, militant Anwar Al Awlaki, the American-born “YouTube” preacher of Yemeni descent, is said to have inspired both the Fort Dix attack plot of 2007 and the Fort Hood shooter of 2009. In mid-December 2009, Obama ordered Cruise missiles to bomb a portion of Yemen believed to house Al Awlaki, murdering more than 100 civilians. In apparent retaliation, the Underpants Bomber left Yemen with a bomb that he intended to explode over Detroit on Christmas Day 2009.

Obama’s order to assassinate Al Awlaki, an American citizen, was issued in January 2010. The Times Square bomber returned from Pakistan after the assassination order on February 3.

Prior to May 1, 2010, the people of the United States suffered no consequences from the killing of innocent civilians by the CIA in Pakistan or by the Navy in Yemen. They still have not been murdered in retaliation for what the CIA and the American military are doing. No-fly lists, Miranda nonwarnings, and similar measures may stop future plots. But plotting itself evidently will continue as long as the war crimes continue—indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians in Pakistan and Yemen.

Shahzad was angered by the deaths of innocent Pakistanis in his homeland while Bush was president. He would have been disappointed as Obama ordered a sharp increase in drone attacks of Pakistanis. And he also would have been unhappy about reprisals in Yemen. Actions indeed lead to reactions.

The title of a recent book by former ambassador Peter Galbraith is Unintended Consequences (2008). Its subtitle is How War in Iraq Strengthened America’s Enemies. Surely there must come a time when decision makers in Washington will learn from Galbraith and others to become better chessplayers, anticipating reactions before taking actions.

Meanwhile, Washington refuses to connect the dots and continues to foment more anger among Muslims around the world, who in turn are aware of and eager to retaliate against such obvious American war crimes.

Will Donald Rumsfeld face accountability for his actions in authorizing torture? After resigning as Secretary of Defense in 2006, a warrant for his arrest was issued in Paris during October 2007 soon after he arrived in France to give a talk. But he sneaked out of the country to avoid handcuffs and incarceration, and he was secretly driven to Germany before flying back to the United States, clutching a passport that he may now have shredded to avoid similar incidents in the future.

Less well publicized was a lawsuit filed just after Rumsfeld left office in 2006, Vance v Rumsfeld, until Judge Wayne Anderson ruled in early March 2010 that the case will proceed to trial in a Chicago federal court. The case, in which two Americans seek unspecified damages, alleges the following offenses were committed against them:

• false arrest
• denial of property without due processunlawful detention
• unlawful search and seizure
• denial of right to counsel in interrogations – coerced statements
• denial of Sixth Amendment right to counsel
• denial of right to confront adverse witnesses
• denial of right to present witnesses and evidence, and to have exculpatory evidence disclosed
• unlawful conditions of detention
• denial of necessary medical care

What happened to the two Americans also occurred to thousands of Afghans, Iraqis, and others who were not protected by the American constitution. But the same offenses could be repackaged as war crimes, as noted below.

The circumstances of the allegations by the two men, Donald Vance and Nathan Ertel, provide more substantiation of the abuses of Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. The fate of the case will serve as precedent for foreigners to file suit on the same basis. The following are facts alleged in their lawsuit:

• Ertel and Vance were employed in Iraq during 2005 as private security contractors of Shield Group Security (SGS). In that capacity they observed SGS agents making payments to insurgent Iraqi sheikhs, who in turn bought weapons from SGS. While on home leave, Vance reported the payoffs to the Chicago FBI office, which in turn asked Vance to collect evidence on the matter. Ertel, his roommate, was unaware of Vance’s quest to identify illegal actions by SGS, but tendered his resignation due to his suspicions.
• Rather than allowing Ertel to leave SGS housing, on April 14, 2006, to secure employment elsewhere, SGS confiscated both of their access cards, effectively imprisoning them in the SGS compound. When they asked FBI officials in Iraq for advice on what to do, they were told to barricade themselves in their room until they could be rescued. Army personnel arrived, liberated Ertel and Vance, and took them to the American embassy, where their property was seized and they were questioned. They, of course, provided testimony about SGS activities during the interrogation.
• However, three hours after their questioning, they were arrested, handcuffed, blindfolded, earmuffed, and accused of supplying weapons to insurgents. When they arrived at Camp Prosperity, they were strip searched, placed in a cage, and then held in solitary confinement in separate cells. Two days later, they were shackled, blindfolded, and transferred to Camp Cropper, where they were also strip searched and placed in solitary confinement. They were fed a breakfast (bread, a powdered rink, with occasional fruit) and a lunch and dinner (chicken and rice).
• While at Camp Cropper, they were repeatedly interrogated for long hours by unidentified military personnel, who used coercive methods, mentally and physically, including “walling,” that is, walked into walls while blindfolded. They were denied the right to counsel. The fluorescent lights were turned on continuously. Heavy metal or country music blared in the corridor most of the time. To further deprive them of sleep, they were awakened at random times and ordered to stand in their cold cells (with temperatures in the 50s). They tried to sleep in 9×9-foot cells on worn 3” foam mats on concrete slabs. The suit alleges that they were tortured and otherwise treated in a manner authorized by Rumsfeld.
• On April 20, they were informed that they would appear before the Detainee Status Board on April 23 to determine their status, but on April 22 they learned instead that their status was identified as “security internees.” Given the right to appeal, on April 26 they appeared before the Board to appeal their cases, though they were denied the evidence seized from them to present in their defense, and they were not allowed to testify on each other’s behalf.

On May 7, Ertel was reclassified as an innocent civilian and released on May 17. Vance was held for two more months of continuous questioning, called his fiancé at the end of his first week after the hearing, and requested blankets and legal representation. He wrote ten letters to his fiancé, who contacted Senator Richard Durban and others, but the only letter she received through the courtesy of the Red Cross was dated July 17. Vance was finally released on July 20. Neither was charged with any crime.

After they returned to Illinois, they sought legal counsel, and they filed their case on December 18, 2006. Rumsfeld, a resident of Maryland, sought to have the venue of the cased moved from Chicago, but Judge Anderson denied the request on October 11, 2007. Rumsfeld also sought to have the case dismissed, but that motion was denied on March 5, 2010.

The larger significance of the case is that the two Americans and an unidentified third at Camp Cropper appear to have been treated in a manner similar to the other prisoners (except for appearing in person before a tribunal, a right denied to all Iraqis but Saddam Hussein). Extrapolating from the way the Americans were treated to what the other Iraqis experienced as prisoners in an ongoing war, Rumsfeld is being judged in an American court for what a lawsuit filed by Iraqis at the same base might characterize as the following war crimes:

.

The words “war crimes” are not allowed on American media. When Jack Cafferty and John Stewart used them accusatorily, they were forced to retract. Not so in Europe, where a German court has ruled that the Iraq War is illegal, a French magistrate issued an order for the arrest of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and an ongoing British inquiry commission is hearing testimony about the illegality of the Iraq War and Whitehall’s complicity in the extraordinary rendition and torture of British citizens at the hands of the American military.

Director Roman Polanski’s The Ghost Writer, therefore, is somewhat of a breakthrough, using as the film does the words “war crimes” and “war criminal,” albeit in reference to a certain former British Prime Minister. The accused, transparently Tony Blair but in the film Adam Lang (played by Pierce Brosnan), is living in exile on Martha’s Vineyard (actually filmed on Sylt Island, Germany), far from the reach of British courts. Lang’s forthcoming autobiography is in the works, with about $10 million in advance royalties paid to him.

However, his ghostwriter has died, and a replacement (played by Ewan McGregor) is hired early in the film, one who professes to know nothing about politics but has previous experience as a best-selling ghostwritting autobiographer. The new ghostwriter is hustled to the island (named Edgewood Vineyard in the film) to take up his duties amid security, as protesters outside Lang’s estate insist that he is a liar and war criminal, particularly after charges are referred to the International Criminal Court. At first, the ghostwriter stays as the only guest in the only hotel on the island, but that proves untenable due to the animosity toward Lang on the island, so he moves into the same room as the former ghostwriter on the Lang estate, thereby piquing his interest in the cause of his predecessor’s death.

After an initial interview with Lang, his former foreign minister accuses him of war crimes, so Lang goes to Washington for support. While Lang is gone, the ghostwriter finds evidence that appears to contradict Lang’s statements and uncovers the foreign minister’s telephone number in a hidden location within his room on the back of a mysterious photograph. The ghostwriter decides to return to the hotel, but while driving in a vehicle from Lang’s garage, he realizes that the GSP voice is leading him on the same path taken by his predecessor to Cape Cod, namely, the residence of Professor Paul Emmett (played by Paul Wilkinson), who is unhappy about the unannounced visitor. A computer search reveals ties between Emmett, who met Lang at Cambridge University when both were students in a drama production, and the CIA. At this point, the ghostwriter realizes that he is in over his head, but who will save him?

Therein lies the suspense of The Ghost Writer, which fortuitously has been released during the war crimes inquiry chaired by Sir John Chilcot, thereby strengthening the main premise for the film, though Americans viewing publicity for The Ghost Writer may be distracted into believing that the plot is merely a political thriller. The story is based on the 2007 book The Ghost: A Novel by Robert Harris. Clearly, the film accuses George W. Bush and his minions of war crimes as well. Polanski, who is in exile, knows that sex with a 13-year-old in 1977 pales in comparison with the hundreds of thousands of deaths in the Iraq War. He may shock Americans by portraying such a high level of animosity toward Blair, whereas Bush appears to have receded from visibility for his similar decisions within an America that may be puzzled over why Europeans who suffered so much during World War II are so upset over war crimes being committed today.

The world has taken note that America today is a nation of cowards, no longer the home of the brave.

Bravery means taking risks in the pursuit of noble goals. Cowardice is a refusal, because of fear, to take those risks. Resigned to fate as never before, Americans cower in fear and no longer set a positive example to the world.

Democrats and Republicans are afraid to close Guantánamo for all sorts of reasons. They are afraid to grant asylum to prisoners who have been held in Guantánamo for years despite court rulings that they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, picked up by bounty hunters, improperly screened, and innocent of any crime against the United States. The land that opened its doors to Albert Einstein has closed its doors even to those escaping from government terrorism in China. Now, such humble nations as the Bahamas, Palau, and several countries in Europe have compassionately and nobly granted them asylum, while the United States is afraid, cowardly, insensitive, and ignoble.

Democrats and Republicans are afraid to house hardened terrorists in maximum security prisons of Colorado, Illinois, Michigan, South Carolina, and elsewhere. The fear is that they will escape, corrupt others from solitary confinement cells, or provoke attacks to rescue them. Yet nobody has ever escaped from these prisons, solitary confinement by definition rules out communication with others, and the FBI could actually set traps around those prisons to catch more terrorists. In other words, they cowardly have lost confidence in federal prison officials and the FBI.

Democrats and Republicans are afraid to put undoubted terrorists, now held at Guantánamo, on trial in New York or any other American city. They fear that the trials will provide a platform for their views, will provoke further terrorist attacks against the city, will corrupt fellow prisoners in federal jails, or even might be found not guilty. Yet they did not raise the hue and cry in the past when other terrorists were tried in New York and elsewhere, even after 9/11, when none of their current fears were realized. In other words, they cowardly have lost confidence in federal courts and jails. Pusillanimous, they are no longer interested in upholding the constitution.

Democrats and Republicans are afraid to use federal criminal courts to try those at Guantánamo who are accused of federal crimes outside of the battlefield, preferring the sophistry that international law applies, namely, the law of warfare. Yet that very international law, the Geneva Conventions, clearly indicates the illegality of such trials. They refuse to consult the dictionary and the law to determine that war involves combat on a battlefield with opposing enemies. They cowardly have lost confidence in federal courts. They are no longer interested in the rule of law and the constitution.

For those who committed offenses on the battlefields of Afghanistan and were sent to Guantánamo, cowardly Americans are afraid of using existing military courts to try them for offenses against the law of warfare. They want to fabricate military commissions so that they can get quick results with a minimum of Geneva Convention guarantees. They no longer trust American military courts that have stood the test of time for centuries, fearing that they will not convict those for whom evidence is substantial. They have lost confidence in the American military. They want cowardly kangaroo courts.

Other examples abound in a new era of American cowardice. Not so long ago, two American presidents feared military service and sought exemptions, and the American people rewarded them with elective office. As presidents, they unsurprising lied to the American people about their cowardly misdeeds while in office.

Members of Congress cower before the lobbying power of the banks, which with impunity received bailouts and then awarded bonuses in total defiance. These cowardly banks were so fearful of risky mortgages that they bundled them together, pressured rating companies to give them AAA ratings, sold them to unsuspecting investors, and then had the temerity to foreclose those who were insufficiently warned of the terms of their mortgages. Now they have the capital, thanks to a recent Supreme Court ruling, to defeat and deter any member of Congress who might respond by demanding reform of the financial sector.

Members of Congress are resigning because they fear that they will have to fight for their principles and just do not have the courage of their convictions. They fear their colleagues and the voters because they do not want to take risks to fight to transform their country a better place in which to live. They have lost confidence in the governmental process and do not even want to correct that process by abolishing earmarks, the filibuster, and procedural bottlenecks because they prefer to use them whenever they want or, in a supreme cowardly manner, resign from office when their votes are needed.

Republican Members of Congress are using those procedural bottlenecks because they fear the majority, the will of the people. Rather than have the majority enact reforms to benefit the people, they use bottlenecks to prevent a president elected by a landslide to do what he promised, fearing that he will succeed in reviving the American dream. They want him to fail because they lost, an example of unmatched political cowardice in American history. In other words, they want the people to abandon the American Dream by preventing them from relying on their government to help them in time of emergency.

Many Democrats are perhaps even more cowardly. They supported the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, the Military Commissions Act, and even blocked funds to close Guantánamo. They spinelessly failed to stand up to efforts to repeal the constitution, go to war on a flimsy pretext, flout the rule of law, and maintain an American gulag that serves as a recruiting tool for terrorists (in the opinion of an intelligence estimate under the Bush administration!).

But not all Democrats. Jimmy Carter, John Conyers, Dennis Kucinich, and others have spoken out against those who preach doom unless American democracy is repealed. However, these Democrats have not been supported by cowardly leaders of their own party, who fear defeat at the polls if they stand up for the institutions and values that have made the country great. Generals David Petraeus and Colin Powell, who have established their credentials as paragons of bravery, agree that the prison at Guantánamo should be closed, and torture should never be used.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has espoused the view, developed by Obama, that Americans need to be “psychologically prepared to withstand [terrorism] and grow stronger over time.” During the Blitz, leaders in England united to face a common enemy, and the population followed suit. Today, Republicans wax hysterical to engender more infantile fear for the sake of political expediency, while decent people have foiled airborne attacks by Richard Reid and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallah.

The biggest coward of all is former Vice President Dick Cheney. He pedals a “one percent doctrine,” which argues that the ideals and very identity of America must be abandoned to catch a few terrorists. No matter that Britain endured decades of terrorism and learned the lesson that cowardly governmental terrorism provokes more terrorists to act bravely. For Cheney, torture must be used despite constitutional prohibitions, evidence that no important intelligence is ever derived, and how counterproductive are extreme methods in a struggle that primarily psychological, an effort by terrorists to gain support by provoking illegitimate American actions while turning the United States into a cowardly, lawless, and terrorist state. For Cheney, even innocent prisoners at Guantánamo should be tortured, tried, convicted, and held indefinitely. He even laments that President Bush allowed most of the 64 child prisoners (as young as 10 years old) to leave the naval gulag for home. He wants terrorist criminal acts to be declared “war,” but he is unwilling to carry his fight with bravery and honor. After all, he is yet another draft dodger.

The media are also complicit, refusing to use the words “war crime” to identify the illegality of decisions in Washington. They do not identify the conspiracy to propagandize the public into supporting illegitimate war, the use of banned weapons (including depleted uranium ordinance that is causing leukemia in Iraq today), the existence of thousands of child prisoners cruelly processed at American-run prisons abroad, the disruption of education and health care in Iraq during the occupation, and inhumane conditions in the shantytown outside Kabul created by the war. Even CNN’s Jack Cafferty was forced by his boss to retract his statement on television characterizing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as a “war criminal.” However, Glen Beck takes the prize for crying on the air like a coward for an unspecified fear of change under the Obama administration.

Yet Rumsfeld’s behavior did not stop the French government from charging him with the war crime of authorizing torture. While in Paris during late 2006, gendarme waited outside the building where he was giving a talk to take him into custody based on a warrant issued for his arrest. Like a coward, he sneaked out the back door, and was driven to Germany, where he boarded a flight back to the United States.

The illegality of war has not stopped Germany either. After a German soldier refused to be deployed to Iraq on the ground that the war was illegal under international law, a German court agreed with him in 2005. Ehren Watada, an American soldier at a base in the state of Washington, bravely refused deployment to an illegal war. His court martial ended in 2007 without a verdict, and military officers have cowardly refused a re-hearing to decide the issue, fearing that a military court will absolve Watada. Vincent Bugliosi, author of The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder (2008), similarly, has been unable to locate a single district attorney in the United States with the guts to accuse Bush of homicide for sending brave American soldiers to their death in an illegal war, just as Charles Manson was convicted for ordering others to murder on his behalf.

The bravery of individual American soldiers has even been undermined by the conduct of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Washington has allocated nearly half of the soldiers to force protection in order to minimize casualties. Aerial attacks have been undertaken on many missions resulting in indiscriminate deaths of civilians and extrajudicial executions of terrorist leaders, all in violation of the Geneva Conventions, out of a fear of casualties that might result if foot soldiers were deployed instead. Also in violation of international law, mercenaries from the United States and other countries, have been engaged in combat operations in both countries.

Some top brass have also acted in a cowardly manner. Fear that defeat in Afghanistan would occur on his watch, General Stanley McChrystal waged a media campaign during mid-2009 to increase American troops rather than filing a confidential report with President Barack Obama. And, charged by Obama to report on compliance with the Geneva Conventions at Guantánamo in accordance with his executive order of January 22, 2009, Admiral Patrick Walsh presented a report one month later on only 27 provisions, ignoring at least one hundred other war crimes. Walsh even bragged that some prisoners were held in solitary confinement. According to the Geneva Conventions, solitary confinement is punishment for infraction of a prison rule or conviction of a war crime, yet those so confined were never given a hearing, as required. They have defied Obama in a cowardly manner.

Meanwhile, American soldiers continue to fight valiantly. In mid-February 2010, Marine Lt. Col. Matt Baker, commander of the 1st Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment, in conducting an important and sensitive operation in Marja, Afghanistan, said, “The people need to be brave. . . . We have to be a strong team.” He was backed up by the district governor, Haji Abdul Manaf, who counseled, “How are you going to guard your area if you’re scared of Taliban and won’t come out of your house?” The same words apply to the cowardly people of Standish, Michigan, who refused to allow an empty maximum security prison to house hardened prisoners now at Guantánamo as well as to legislators in Illinois who have voted to keep them out of their state.

Scholar Giovanna Dell’Orto, analyzing thousands of foreign media articles and government publications about the United States over the years in her The Hidden Power of the American Dream (2007), shows that the essence of America around the world is that the land of opportunity exists and the experiment in democracy works. She notes that after 9/11 newspapers across Europe proclaimed “We Are All Americans” in many different languages. But the cowardly response to 9/11, the fearmongering by the nation’s leaders that has seeped into the consciousness of the people, has destroyed that positive image. Americans abroad now fear that they will be targets of opprobrium by those who wanted to support us, even cowardly sewing Canadian emblems on their backpacks while traveling through Europe.

For Europeans, America has lost its way, is no longer confident, is unable to lead, cannot accomplish needed reforms, and has no clear vision anymore. Around the world, America has been perceived as a nation of cowards during the first decade of the twenty-first century. The supreme irony is that terrorists are primarily cowards who stay in the closet and then kill innocents.

Recent bipartisan support to rescue Haiti from turmoil is an example of the bigheartedness that the world expects from America. In President Barack Obama, perhaps the most vocal advocate of bipartisanship in American history since Senator Arthur Vandenberg, the world hopes that America will find itself again. He advocates major reforms that will benefit ordinary Americans because he believes and embodies the American Dream. But he is up against a nation of fearmongers and cowards whose resistance has forced him to back down on many issues, notably the prosecution of war criminals, which is itself a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Now is the time for Americans to call out the fearmongers for what they are—cowards.

Political Scientist Michael Haas is the author of 33 books on government and politics. He has taught at Northwestern, Purdue, the University of Hawai`i, the University of London, and various colleges and universities in California, most recently California Polytechnic University, Pomona. He has been nominated for the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize, primarily for his book, George W. Bush, War Criminal (2009), which begins with a Foreword by Nuremberg Chief Prosecutor Benjamin B. Ferencz.

President Barack Obama is doubtless aware that the administration of George W. Bush committed some 269 separate war crimes, as identified in the acclaimed book George W. Bush, War Criminal? (Praeger 2009). A copy of the book, signed by the author with an expression of good wishes, was personally provided to NBC White House correspondent Chuck Todd to be transmitted to Barack Obama shortly before his inauguration.

As president, Obama’s actions indicate that he is aware of many war crimes. He gave a speech on the subject in May 2009. But what actions has he taken? What is his plan?

It is important to remember that war crimes under Bush did not start with the invasion of Afghanistan. On the contrary, General Tommy Franks ordered his troops to comply with the Geneva Conventions at the start of the Afghan War on October 17, 2001. However, on November 13, he was countermanded by President George W. Bush, whose advisers told him that he had almost unlimited power as a war president, and that they needed intelligence from those being captured in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere.

Some 778 prisoners ended up at the Naval Base in Guantánamo Bay. When the first batch arrived on January 11, 2002, Brigadier General Rick Baccus insisted that the Geneva Conventions be observed, but his order was soon countermanded.

The military conquest of Iraq, which began in 2003, also occurred without adherence to the Geneva Conventions. The most notable violations occurred at Abu Ghraib Prison.

In all, Bush’s war crimes constituted four major types of violations–the decisions to go to war, the conduct of both wars, the mistreatment of prisoners, and the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. They are primarily violations of Geneva Conventions requirements.

Presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain agreed that Guantánamo should be shut down. The public reasoning was that America’s image abroad needed to be repaired by closing the facility. They did not use the term “war crimes,” either during the campaign or subsequently.

On January 22, 2009, President Barack Obama ordered Guantánamo closed within a year. He also ordered full compliance with the Geneva Conventions at the facility, though not at the prisons run by the American military in either Afghanistan or Iraq. By insisting that the military must abide by the Geneva Conventions, he was tacitly admitting that war crimes had been committed. Approximately 150 of the 269 war crimes involved misconduct at Guantánamo.

On the same day when President Obama ordered Guantánamo’s closure within a year, he requested a report on compliance with the Geneva Convention at the prison on the naval base. The report was to be completed within a month. On February 3, the task was assigned to Admiral Patrick Walsh. However, the scope of the 85-page report, submitted on February 21, was limited to 27 types of war crimes, primarily those enumerated in Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Other war crimes at Guantánamo were ignored by the report and continued. Some prisoners complained to their attorneys that abuse increased soon after Obama became president.

But if 27 crimes were no longer taking place at Guantánamo, most of them were still taking place at American-run prisons in Afghanistan and Iraq. So the net effect in reducing types of war crimes was minimal.

Among the remaining war crimes, 6 dealt with the initial decision to go to war, which Obama could not undo. Among the 36 war crimes dealing with the conduct of war, the most egregious was the bombing of innocent civilians in Afghanistan. Among the 52 war crimes dealing with the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, the most obvious today is that United States troops are not able to maintain stability for the Afghan government.

Critics of the war crimes have had a simple plan—military withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq and closure of Guantánamo, to be accomplished as soon as possible. But that is not Obama’s plan, which must be inferred from his incremental actions:

• Abide by the Geneva Conventions at Guantánamo. President Barack Obama’s executive order of January 22, 2009, may have done some good, but the military defied him by limiting its compliance to just a few war crimes, most notably the ban on torture.
• Close Guantánamo. With no prisoners at Guantánamo, there would be no crimes committed against them. But, first of all, 192 who are now imprisoned must be relocated. Cowardly opposition to their relocation within the United States has been expressed by politicians and pundits, and townspeople who might host them at secure prisons have been unwilling to allow the prisoners into their towns. Were the prisoners to become bait in American prisons, attracting external or domestic terrorists, that possibility would make the FBI’s counterrorism task much easier, as those seeking to free the prisoners could be efficiently trapped in an FBI lion’s den, but that possibility holds no water with fearmongers.
• Transfer innocent prisoners to other countries. A few countries accepted 45 of the prisoners (15 within Europe, 6 in Palau, 4 in the Bahamas, and most of the rest to their homelands) during 2009. Two of the 15 were extradited to Italy for trial on terrorism charges. Today, diplomatic efforts are ongoing to place some 78 prisoners who are eligible for transfer. By midsummer 20 will be transferred out, and various countries have recently agreed to accept 25 current Guantánamo prisoners. The remaining 33 were scheduled to be returned to Yemen in December 2009, but their release was postponed because Obama believes that country lacks a satisfactory level of stability.
• Put some Guantánamo prisoners on trial in federal courts for criminal offenses. At least 5 who are associated with attacks on or over American property, at home or abroad, are to be tried in New York, Washington, or perhaps elsewhere, including those charged with conspiracy in the 9/11 attack, just as the “shoe bomber” was prosecuted earlier under Bush. That leaves 35 others to be tried, either in federal courts or by military commissions.
• Put other Guantánamo prisoners on trial in military commissions for offenses committed on battlefields. At least 6 of the 35 will be tried on military bases. For this purpose, Congress in 2009 amended the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to provide greater civil rights guarantees, presumably consistent with Geneva Convention requirements. Defense attorneys will, of course, challenge those presumptions.
• Hold some prisoners indefinitely. Those not cleared for release, including 47 potentially dangerous prisoners who will never be put on trial because of tainted evidence against them, will have to be moved to somewhere in the United States or its Territories. Obama believes that Congress’ Authorization for the Use of Military Force resolution of 2001 permits all 47 to be indefinitely detained. Congress has yet to authorize or appropriate funds for facilities where they would be held.
• Close all American-run prisons in Iraq. Camp Bucca closed in September 2009. Obama ordered Camp Cropper to be closed by the end of 2009 and Camp Ashraf in July 2010. But the Iraq government requested a postponement of the Cropper closure, pending the recruitment and training of sufficient personnel to handle those confined.
• Reduce the American military presence in Iraq. The Marines packed up to evacuate in January 2010. By August 2010, most American troops are to depart the country, leaving a residual force of at least 35,000 to be available on request by the Iraq military for counterterrorism deployment. Then even the residual force is scheduled to leave by the end of 2011.
• Stop indiscriminate aerial bombing of targets in Afghanistan. The increase of 21,000 troops to Afghanistan ordered by Obama in March 2009 was premised in part on the ending of the program to bomb targets by air that killed far too many innocent civilians. No such extrajudicial executions of enemy forces or innocent civilians have occurred since then in Afghanistan, but they continue in Pakistan and occurred once in Yemen in retaliation for the December 25 underpants bomber plot.
• Close the prison at Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan. A decision to do so was signed on January 16, 2010. In allowing the Afghan government to take over the facility, the war crime of failing to respect Afghanistan’s judicial system as well as various war crimes associated with the mistreatment of prisoners will end.
• Reduce the American military presence in Afghanistan. Obama has promised to begin withdrawing American military forces from the country by July 2011, but no date for a total pullout has been set. The ambitious strategy is to train an Afghan army, bribe warlords now supporting the Taliban to switch allegiances, provide security for anti-Taliban villages, cut financial resources to the Taliban, and eliminate Al Qaeda and Taliban sanctuaries in Pakistan in cooperation with a reluctant Pakistan. However, the strategy entails more extrajudicial executions, civilian deaths, and possibly even more violations of international law.

With these eleven steps, made at different times, President Barack Obama has been seeking to reduce the war crimes that he inherited from President George W. Bush. But he is inevitably responsible for those that occur in the interim. Extraordinary rendition and the use of mercenaries for combat will also continue despite their illegality under international law. And Mr. Bipartisan has no plan to prosecute members of the Bush administration for their culpability in war crimes because he is now implicated as well. Although he has banned torture, and might support efforts to prosecute those responsible, he has chosen not to open that Pandora’s box.

And for the same reason neither Congress nor the president plan a truth commission, the outcome of which will at a minimum be the same as in Britain’s ongoing inquiry commission–to conclude that the Iraq War was illegal, that is, involved the war crime of initiating unprovoked aggression.

Thus, during 2009 President Obama gradually developed a comprehensive plan. Bush’s war crimes were rolled over to his presidency when he took office. He has refrained from using the words “war crimes,” and the major media have followed suit. Time will tell how well he succeeds.

Political Scientist Michael Haas is the author of 33 books on government and politics. He has taught at Northwestern, Purdue, the University of Hawai`i, the University of London, and various colleges and universities in California, most recently California Polytechnic University, Pomona. He has been nominated for the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize, primarily for his book, George W. Bush, War Criminal (2009), which begins with a Foreword by Nuremberg Chief Prosecutor Benjamin B. Ferencz.

American military attacks in 2010 are likely to continue in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen. Never before has the United States been militarily involved in so many countries. Why? To what end? And what is the exit strategy?

Whereas President Barack Obama called for observance of the Geneva Conventions at Guantánamo, his executive order did not apply to Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, or the other battlefields. Violations of the law of warfare have continued in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and now Yemen, particularly the aerial execution of innocent civilians. But the center of America’s new military approach is Afghanistan, so the illogic needs to be traced.

On September 18, 2001, Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) resolution that was used by President George W. Bush to greenlight the American military to attack in a country where a government harbored terrorists. Afghanistan was the immediate target, since the Taliban provided sanctuary to Osama Bin Laden and could not surrender the entire Al Qaeda terrorist organization, as Bush demanded. When the war had presumably concluded by the end of 2001, the UN Security Council approved a military presence in the country to stabilize the Kabul government, provided that human rights would be respected.

But Al Qaeda leaders left Afghanistan in 2007, settling in the border region of Pakistan, and began to fund the Taliban army in Afghanistan as a reward for their past cooperation, and the Taliban began to establish supremacy in several Afghan provinces.

In other words, AUMF no longer strictly applied. So . . . what did? The UN resolution, which has been reauthorized annually, is the only legal basis for the American military presence in Afghanistan today.

After taking office, President Barack Obama beefed up troop strength in Afghanistan (“the necessary war”) to eliminate all vestiges of Al Qaeda and its presumed partner, the Taliban. In March, he responded to a military request by ordering a 21,000 increase in American military troops within Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban. He also sacked the military commander in Afghanistan, replacing him with General Stanley McChrystal. But he did not then give one of his eloquent addresses to explain the escalation. Instead, he responded ambiguously to press questions. The apparent justification articulated by administration officials was that the United States must contain the Taliban—but not necessarily achieve victory–lest Al Qaeda return to a sanctuary in Afghanistan. In other words, President Obama decided to conduct a preemptive war, just like the war that he opposed in Iraq.

European countries were not immediately impressed and refused to supply more than token amounts of troops to the UN-approved North Atlantic Treaty Organization force in Afghanistan. After all, 9/11 was an American idée fixe, not theirs.

Meanwhile, American civilian development support aid and personnel in Afghanistan increased to the point where civilians outnumbered military, hoping that the mostly illiterate Afghan population would warm to development aid construction that the Taliban would likely destroy anyway. At least the increase in troops obviated more bombing raids to kill civilians in Afghanistan.

A majority in a mid-August public opinion poll opposed the Afghan War. The 21,000 increase was clearly not enough to defeat the Taliban, so General McChrystal in October urged as few as 40,000 and as  many as 60,000 more ground troops, capped at 200,000, to be supported by Afghan troops yet to be trained. The 40,000 request, publicized in high-profile terms, gave no assurance that any number of troops could ever achieve victory. McChrystal just wanted to avoid being blamed for possible defeat, but in the process his leaked report checkmated Obama, who otherwise had been listening carefully to Vice President Biden’s proposal for a small unit to target just Al Qaeda.

Then President Obama opted for an extraordinary conclave. He invited thirty members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, to the White House in early October for consultation. As a result, he and everyone present heard contradictory advice. Obama was obviously seeking a compromise that would not result in a partisan backlash. He did not want to undermine troop morale, but his delay in sending more troops, as requested by McChrystal, meant there were fewer personnel for force protection.

In mid-October the Taliban overwhelmed American troops in Kamdesh, whereupon the base was abandoned. Although downplayed by the military except as a talking point to continue requesting more troops, the action appeared to be a mini-Tet offensive, and the withdrawal had parallels to the pullout from Beirut in 1983.

Next, President Obama broke a seventeen-year ban on filming coffins of fallen G.I.s when he visited a recent shipment from the battlefield at the end of October, presumably to make the point that sending more troops to die weighed heavily on him. He hesitated to invest more American lives for a venture that had no guarantee of success against the Taliban, which in turn professed no interest in threatening the United States. A new commander was named to train the Afghan army and police despite the fact that in multiethnic Afghanistan the result would be to empower members of ethnic groups within a country where tribalism is an important source of conflict and nationalism is secondary.

While Congressional Republicans and the right-wing media clamored for more troops to achieve a military victory that Obama’s generals could not guarantee until the end of a decade, if then, his hesitation was based on the wide perception within Afghanistan that President Hamid Karzai’s government was unworthy of American support. An election in Afghanistan was thought vital for legitimating Karzai or some other leader as president, but the elections were rigged. President Obama then persuaded Karzai to disavow the phony election by agreeing to a runoff election against his principal opponent. When Karzai refused the request of the other candidate, Abdullah Abdullah, to fire those responsible for running the bogus election, Abdullah withdrew his candidacy, leaving Karzai the last candidate standing. Obama’s forceful pressure on Karzai regarding the election made him seem even more of a puppet inside his country, thus undermining his legitimacy in the eyes of the Afghan people.

Finally, in a speech at West Point on December 1, Obama capitulated to General McChrystal’s request for more troops and support personnel and to continue the hunt for terrorists in Somalia and elsewhere. Instead of 40,000, Obama agreed to 30,000. He wanted to go after Al Qaeda, reverse the Taliban’s increasing control of the countryside, build Afghanistan’s army to take over, and then begin troop withdrawals within eighteen months–a post-imperial policy valuing American economic strength at home as more important than spending more blood and treasure for a potentially lost cause. Whereas many observers considered his speech cold and detached, it is a clue to his personality that he felt that his remarks were his “most emotional speech.”

The Pentagon has intimated that the task of the additional troops will be to provide security to Afghan villages under siege by the Taliban. How they can do so without knowing the customs and languages of the country is not explained.

Sending more troops with no likelihood of achieving their mission raises profound questions.

So . . . why are so many troops being sent? One suspicion is that many troops in Afghanistan and Iraq are there to be not far from the border of Iran, where instability might some day provide yet another crazy opportunity. For Obama, the strategy of “escalation first, withdrawal later” might allow him to have his cake and eat it, too. But he might instead suffer indigestion, as the policy will certainly fail for lack of logical coherence. Meanwhile, the governments of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Somalia all agree that increases in American military action are unwelcome. President Karzai’s opposition to the 30,000 surge is that he appears even more to be a puppet, an illegitimate ruler.

In short, the conduct of the various wars is surreal, Washington’s justification Kafkaesque. Outmaneuvered by military press releases and fearful of appearing weak on national defense and counterterrorism, President Obama has widened military conflict war in pursuit of an elusive enemy that is gaining adherents because of a policy that betrays his campaign promises, his Cairo speech, and has wiped the smile off his face for many months.

Political Scientist Michael Haas is the author of 33 books on government and politics. He has taught at Northwestern, Purdue, the University of Hawai`i, the University of London, and various colleges and universities in California, most recently California Polytechnic University, Pomona. He has been nominated for the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize.

An important new documentary from Robert Greenwald has been released privately under the title Rethinking Afghanistan. With film footage that includes interviews of various Afghans, American policy makers, and other observers, along with the scenery around them, the purpose of the film is to question the logic of sending troops to fight in Afghanistan from at least four points of view: (1) The toll of human suffering is considerable. (b) The Taliban increases in proportion to the number of American troops. (c) The defeat of Al Qaeda is a completely separate policy objective from the defeat of the Taliban. (d) Pakistan’s Taliban problem increases in proportion to the number of American troops in Afghanistan. Greenwald hopes that the documentary will be more persuasive than editorial opinions which have said the same.

One perspective missing from the film is the legal approach. There is no mention in the film of the legal basis or lack thereof under American or international law for the presence of American troops in Afghanistan. If the entire operation is illegal, then Greenwald’s criticism that the policy is immoral and self-defeating is superfluous. An illegal war or a war conducted illegally should stop for that reason alone. It would be ludicrous to debate the pros and cons of stopping a serial killer from further murders, but that is what Greenwald and pundits are doing by ignoring the legal issues. A serial killer should be captured, put on trial, and sentenced after being found guilty. War criminals deserve the same.

The fact that the war in Afghanistan is illegal is obvious. There are two aspects to the argument. One is that the war is illegal under American law. Second, the war is illegal because illegally fought.

The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) resolution that Congress adopted on September 18, 2001, was used by President Bush as legal justification for the American military to enter Afghanistan, where the Taliban government harbored Al Qaeda. However, as Greenwald’s film points out, neither the current Afghan government nor the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan today harbors Al Qaeda. Accordingly, the AUMF resolution does not apply. In 2008, when Senator Dianne Feinstein proposed that a new AUMF should be adopted, the premise for her proposal was that the presence of American troops in Afghanistan had questionable legality.

The only legal justification for the presence of American troops in Afghanistan today is the UN Security Council resolution, first adopted in 2001, which authorizes military force to stabilize the government of Afghanistan in Kabul. The resolution has been renewed yearly but stipulates one condition–that human rights must be respected. Thus, if the war is fought illegally, the UN authorization for military force is void. And under international law, a war is illegal if war crimes are committed in the conduct of war.

Greenwald’s documentary, though ostensibly arguing policy, actually provides evidence of the illegal conduct of the American pursuit of war in Afghanistan. It is a pity that he does not make the case. But since that evidence is presented, the following summarizes what he has found as a responsible documentary journalist:

Afghan witnesses primarily attest to seven war crimes in the conduct of war:

• destruction of undefended targets (2^nd Hague Convention of 1899, Article 25)
• bombing of mosques (2^nd Hague Convention of 1899, Article 27)
• failure to compensate for damages from military action (4^th Hague Convention of 1907, Article 3)
• indiscriminate attacks against civilians (Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1971, Article 51)
• failure to attend to the wounded (1^st Geneva Convention of 1949, Article 3)
• excessive targeting of civilians (Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1971, Article 51)
• excessive use of military force (Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1971, Article 57).

Evidence of even more war crimes emerges from witnesses commenting on the nature of the occupation of Afghanistan by American forces. The following violations of the 4^th Geneva Convention of 1949 are reported:

• mass unemployment (Article 51)
• failure to provide re-employment (Article 39)
• unnecessary destruction of private property (Article 53)
• dishonoring women (Article 27)
• dishonoring families (Article 46)
• failure to re-open schools (Article 50)
• insufficient food to feed the population (Article 55)
• insufficient medical supplies for the needs of the population (Article 55)
• reduced medical care (Article 56)
• reduced level of public health (Article 56)
• flouting UN recommendations (Article 12) re respecting human rights of civilians.

In short, the documentary is filled with evidence of war crimes. But Greenwald does not guide filmviewers to discern that war crimes are being committed with impunity. One role for a documentary can be to evoke righteous indignation, and Rethinking Afghanistan does that quite well. Another role for a documentary could be to educate the public about specific crimes that should be stopped immediately.

While debates on high policy continue, people are suffering. More food, jobs, medical care, and schools are needed in Afghanistan now, and they could be given immediate Congressional priority rather than making the argument that Afghans should wait for an unlikely debate to rescind a policy that has already been made with some finality by the president of the United States. Unfortunately, the titles and statements in Rethinking Afghanistan do not present the argument that the needs of the people are urgent and should have top priority.

Nevertheless, the nonverbal film footage depicts a need for immediate attention to ongoing human suffering. Therein lies the most important contribution of the documentary.

Political Scientist Michael Haas is the author of 33 books on government and politics. He has taught at Northwestern, Purdue, the University of Hawai`i, the University of London, and various colleges and universities in California, most recently California Polytechnic University, Pomona. He has been nominated for the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize.

On January 22, 2009, his first full day in office, President Barack Obama signed four executive orders relating to Guantánamo and related interrogation policies in order to fulfill a longstanding campaign promise in the “interest of justice.” A constitutional law professor, he quickly moved to reestablish the rule of law, setting a clear boundary between the Bush and Obama administrations. Subsequently, he asked Congress to fund that closure.

            There were three distinct issues involved—compliance with the Geneva Conventions, release of prisoners inappropriately held, and trial of those accused of crimes. To handle the matter, President Obama appointed two loyalists during the campaign. Gregory Craig was appointed White House coordinator for Guantánamo, and Vets of Obama organizer Phillip Carter was nominated for Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense to effect changes. However, he also appointed former officials in the Clinton administration, namely Eric Holder as Attorney General and Leon Panetta as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. But infighting delayed key decisions.

            Rather than exercising mastery of details and answering critics, the issue was left to quiet deliberation inside the administration with occasional leaks about possible steps toward resolution that were not immediately followed up. In May, President Obama delivered a major address that gave the impression that he understood the complexity and sensitivity of the issues but not how to implement them. Then in November, the public learned that responsibility on the issues was delegated to Attorney General Eric Holder without firm presidential guidance.

            Geneva Conventions. One executive order issued on January 22 insisted on “conformity with all applicable laws governing the conditions of such confinement, including Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions” and asked for a report on compliance within thirty days. No such order was issued to the military operating in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Pakistan. Bush had countermanded General Tommy Franks’s order to observe the Geneva Conventions after American troops first left for Afghanistan. One result was Abu Ghraib, another the abuse at Guantánamo.

            The compliance report submitted within thirty days by Admiral Patrick Walsh only looked at Article 3, ignoring hundreds of other articles and scores of relevant treaties. One recommendation of the report was to allow those in solitary confinement to talk to one another during their two-hour daily recreation periods. But solitary confinement, except as a punishment for an infraction of prison rules, is banned by the Third Geneva Convention. In effect, the Pentagon defied President Obama, who in turn swallowed their medicine by claiming full compliance during his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech in December.

            Indeed, reports of an increase in abuse of prisoners from the day Obama became president represented further defiance. Obama needed Pentagon support to exit from Iraq and increase troop strength for what he called the “war of necessity” in Afghanistan, and he was nonconfrontational toward the Pentagon on the treatment of prisoners. Instead, they checkmated him.

            Leon Panetta, meanwhile, indicated that he would continue the extraordinary rendition policy that captured suspected terrorists, flew them to secret locations, and interrogated them, further indicating that there would be no sharp break with the previous administration’s record of blatant war crimes.

            Just before taking office, Obama’s expressed policy was to look forward, not backward. But not looking backward really meant looking away. Most war crimes continued as before at Guantánamo and on the battlefield.

            President Obama, presumably on the urging of Greg Craig, released the “torture memos” to prove how far the country had lost its “moral bearings” during the Bush years but only after heated divisions within the White House. One reason for the release was presumably to counter repeated criticisms from former Vice President Dick Cheney. But the infighting apparently was over Obama’s refusal to release information that might potentially be exculpatory for the prisoners on the basis of “national security” and “state secrets,” the same justifications used by Bush to frustrate court action.

            In May, Obama reversed his previous decision to comply with a court order to release “torture photographs,” on advice from the military that the effect would be adverse to how American troops abroad would be perceived, an example of his pragmatic humanism in which people come before principles. He oddly failed to cite the obvious—that the Geneva Conventions bans display of prisoners.

            Another move was a sudden release by the Department of Justice of more text from a censored 2004 report on CIA torture and twenty related documents as well as an announcement that an official would investigate whether CIA interrogations conducted under the Bush administration warranted prosecutions for violating federal laws banning torture. Both moves, regarded by civil libertarians as too nuanced, upset CIA Director Leon Panetta so much that some at the White House were then reportedly considering who would be his successor.

            The record of the Bush administration went far beyond torture to violate more than two hundred war crimes in four categories—unprovoked aggression, misconduct on the battlefield, mistreatment of prisoners, and maladministration of Iraq. In January, before Obama took office, Representative John Conyers introduced legislation for a truth commission. But the proposed bill was not referred to a subcommittee for deliberation until mid-2009, and there was no White House support.

            In late August, with Congress in recess, several decisions were announced. A new High Value Detainee Interrogation Group, established within the Federal Bureau of Investigation but reporting to the National Security Council, was designed to cut the Central Intelligence Agency and its contractors out of the process of questioning terrorists under the extraordinary rendition program. Instead, the Army Field Manual would be followed.

            Regarding the culpability of the Bush administration for war crimes, Attorney General Holder merely relegated the matter to an investigation, thereby punting the issue indefinitely. The investigation would determine whether some CIA personnel or others engaged in unlawful torture before Bush administration attorneys wrote legal memoranda justifying harsh treatment. And an investigation also was to rule on whether the legal memos constituted improper legal advice, which might be grounds for disbarment in the states where the lawyers now practiced. More outrage from Cheney and others followed the announcement about investigations of possible wrongdoing.

            President Obama’s search for a middle ground impressed neither rightist politicians nor leftist activists. Although He reassured no one regarding whether members of Bush’s administration might be tried as war criminals. And violations of the Geneva Conventions continued.

            Resettlement. During the Bush administration, many of those at Guantánamo had been released because they were not terrorists. Instead, bounty hunters cashed in on an order from Washington to round up as many suspects as possible and to send them to Guantánamo in a show of decisiveness and strength. Some were treated kindly upon arrival in their home countries, but some were arrested and even tortured, so some had been sent to third countries, notably six Uighurs (refugees from China who happened to be in Afghanistan) to Albania. At least 60 inmates were ordered released before Obama took office. They were, in effect, refugees.

            Greg Craig then quietly sought to release two Uighurs to Virginia, where there is a community of Uighurs. When word leaked out from unknown sources about the impending transfer, hysterical reactions began. Republicans and right-wing pundits falsely claimed that all at Guantánamo were terrorists, hoping to embarrass Obama. During deliberations on funding to close Guantánamo, members of Congress asked for a full resettlement plan, which did not exist, as Craig had hoped that a quiet transfer would be successful, and then more could be granted asylum in the United States. Accordingly, Democrats and Republicans denied authorization of funds to close Guantánamo and required advance notification to Congress of any prisoner transferred out of Guantánamo. Cowardly right-wing politicians and pundits even professed to be afraid of transferring those at Guantánamo to maximum security prisons, presuming that terrorists on the outside would try to spring them loose from a confinement from which no criminal has ever escaped.

            The Department of State, meanwhile, had been finding countries where the innocent prisoners could be resettled. Some indeed returned to Britain and France, and Palau accepted some of the Uighurs. There were promises from other European countries to accept a few, but the numbers fell short, and courts demonstrated displeasure that those ordered released were still being held. 

            Trials. A second executive order signed by President Obama on January 22 asked for a plan within six months on how to try prisoners at Guantánamo deemed terrorists. Civil libertarians insisted that those not released should be tried in civilian courts, while Obama in May held out for finding a way to reform military commissions and keep some prisoners indefinitely.

            Six months later, the deadline was extended, awaiting Congressional passage of a revised Military Commissions Act that would provide more guarantees for the rights of defendants along the lines requested by the Obama administration. In September, President Obama announced a part of the new policy, which repudiated what he had said as a candidate: Based on the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Resolution of 2001, dangerous prisoners who might be found not guilty in trials would be held indefinitely.

            In November, after Obama quietly signed the Military Commissions Act of 2009, the new policy was promulgated by Attorney General Eric Holder, who claimed that he consulted no one in the administration, including Obama, before his announcement. The five who reportedly conspired on the 9/11 attack would be tried in New York federal court, while five allegedly committing crimes abroad would be tried by military commissions in accordance with the Military Commissions Act of 2009, which was slipped into the military appropriation bill. In other words, some terrorists were viewed as committing civilian crimes at civilian targets in the United States, whereas those engaged in attacks abroad were to be tried by military commissions.

            Greg Craig resigned on the day when Holder made his announcement. Phillip Carter resigned shortly thereafter. They had been overruled. Their usefulness to the Obama administration had ended.

            Overall, President Obama tried to find a balance between high ideals and pragmatism. Consistent with his preference for nonconfrontational conflict resolution, the disposition of Guantánamo elicited favorable world opinion immediately but remains a domestic albatross around his neck. A boundary was fixed behavior civil and military action. The “war on terror” was clearly over as a military concept. But that left Obama responsible by default for continuing the misconduct began by George W. Bush, both in the treatment of prisoners and in their less than speedy trials.

            A war crimes ambassador, appointed in October, was assigned to press other countries for their misdeeds, and they in turn have pointed out that the United States pursues a double standard. President Obama’s competence and campaign promises were called into question by the entire saga.

Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Distinguished Members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, citizens of America, and citizens of the world:

I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations — that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.

And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize — Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela — my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened of cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women — some known, some obscure to all but those they help — to be far more deserving of this honor than I.

But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by forty three other countries — including Norway — in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.

Still, we are at war, and I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill. Some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the cost of armed conflict — filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.

These questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease — the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.

Over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers, clerics, and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a “just war” emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional, and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.

For most of history, this concept of just war was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations – total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred. In the span of thirty years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it is hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.

In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another World War. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations — an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this Prize — America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide, and restrict the most dangerous weapons.

In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty, self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.

A decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.

Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states; have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today’s wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sown, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, and children scarred.

I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations — acting individually or in concert — will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King said in this same ceremony years ago — “Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones.” As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life’s work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there is nothing weak, nothing passive, nothing naive in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

I raise this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world’s sole military superpower.

Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions — not just treaties and declarations — that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: the United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest — because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another — that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier’s courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause and to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.

So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly irreconcilable truths — that war is sometimes necessary, and war is at some level an expression of human feelings. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. “Let us focus,” he said, “on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions.”

What might this evolution look like? What might these practical steps be?

To begin with, I believe that all nations — strong and weak alike — must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I — like any head of state — reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards strengthens those who do, and isolates — and weakens — those who don’t.

The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait — a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.

Furthermore, America cannot insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don’t, our action can appear arbitrary, and undercut the legitimacy of future intervention — no matter how justified.

This becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.

I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That is why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.

America’s commitment to global security will never waiver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.

The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries — and other friends and allies — demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they have shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular. But I also know this: the belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That is why NATO continues to be indispensable. That is why we must strengthen UN and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That is why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali — we honor them not as makers of war, but as wagers of peace.

Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant — the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions.

Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe that the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America’s commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. And we honor those ideals by upholding them not just when it is easy, but when it is hard.

I have spoken to the questions that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me turn now to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.

First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to change behavior — for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure — and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.

One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: all will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work toward disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I am working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia’s nuclear stockpiles.

But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.

The same principle applies to those who violate international law by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur; systematic rape in Congo; or repression in Burma — there must be consequences. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.

This brings me to a second point — the nature of the peace that we seek. For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based upon the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.

It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.

And yet all too often, these words are ignored. In some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation’s development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists — a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values.

I reject this choice. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America’s interests — nor the world’s — are served by the denial of human aspirations.

So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear to these movements that hope and history are on their side.

Let me also say this: the promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach — and condemnation without discussion — can carry forward a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.

In light of the Cultural Revolution’s horrors, Nixon’s meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable — and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty, and connected to open societies. Pope John Paul’s engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa. Ronald Reagan’s efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. There is no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement; pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.

Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights — it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.

It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine they need to survive. It does not exist where children cannot aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.

And that is why helping farmers feed their own people — or nations educate their children and care for the sick — is not mere charity. It is also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, famine and mass displacement that will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and activists who call for swift and forceful action — it is military leaders in my country and others who understand that our common security hangs in the balance.

Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. All of these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about. And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, or the staying power, to complete this work without something more — and that is the continued expansion of our moral imagination; an insistence that there is something irreducible that we all share.

As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are; to understand that we all basically want the same things; that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.

And yet, given the dizzying pace of globalization, and the cultural leveling of modernity, it should come as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish about their particular identities — their race, their tribe, and perhaps most powerfully their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we are moving backwards. We see it in Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.

Most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint — no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or even a person of one’s own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but the purpose of faith — for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. We are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.

But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The non-violence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached – their faith in human progress — must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.

For if we lose that faith – if we dismiss it as silly or naive; if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace — then we lose what is best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.

Like generations have before us, we must reject that future. As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago, “I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the ‘isness’ of man’s present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal ‘oughtness’ that forever confronts him.”

So let us reach for the world that ought to be — that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. Somewhere today, in the here and now, a soldier sees he’s outgunned but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, who believes that a cruel world still has a place for his dreams.

Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of deprivation, and still strive for dignity. We can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that — for that is the story of human progress; that is the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.