FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Terrorists Who Torture and Kill for Us

What sort of moral monsters would crash airplanes into buildings and kill thousands of innocent people? Were they the same sort of moral monsters as those whose actions now may produce the death from starvation of perhaps three or four million people over the next several weeks?

The former group of terrorists, still largely faceless and many now dead, were representatives of the terror networks that the CIA founded a generation ago to trouble the USSR. In its most expensive operation in history, the CIA gathered the most savage and fanatical people it could find, trained and armed them, and set them loose in Afghanistan in the 1970s, even before the Soviets invaded that now ruined country. Unfortunately, like so many other CIA “assets,” these Mujahideen did not limit themselves to the task the CIA had in mind. Already in 1981 they assassinated the president of Egypt, Anwar Sadat, and then went on to use the techniques and weapons supplied by the CIA (at the rate of half a billion dollars a year of our tax money) to kill in the name of their Islamicism around the world — in Chechnya, Bosnia, North Africa, Kashmir, the Philippines, and finally New York City.

When asked if he regretted organizing these terrorists, President Carter’s National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, said in a 1998 interview, “What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?” (In Brzezinski’s defense, perhaps, it may be noted that he said that in a 1998 interview, when the stirred-up Moslems were killing merely foreigners and not Americans on American soil.)

The latter group of terrorists are the American officials who complacently contemplate the starvation of millions of people in Afghanistan in the next few weeks in what United Nations Human Rights Commissioner Mary Robinson has called a humanitarian disaster on the scale of Rwanda in the mid-1990s. “Are we going to preside over deaths from starvation of hundreds of thousands — maybe millions — of people this winter because we didn’t use the window of opportunity before winter closes?” Robinson was calling for at least a halt in the American bombing of Afghanistan so that supplies could be put in place. Then on October 24 the NEW YORK TIMES reported that “senior Pentagon officials said for the first time today that they hoped to choke off fuel, food and other supplies …”

Remarkably enough, people who criticize the mass murder being undertaken by Washington are often confronted with the question, “Well, what would you do, after September 11?” My first response is, Try to dissuade my government from killing many, many more people than died on that day. But the questioner usually wants to know what’s to be done to stop terrorism. Of course there was another way. Rather than purposely flouting it, the US should have (a) used the resources of domestic and international law to apprehend and prosecute anyone left alive who was responsible for this crime; and (b) made an effort to understand the causes, motives, and reasons for the crime so that they can be removed, lessening the chance of a repetition. A practical program for (a) would have been:

Before killing anyone, take the matter to the UN Security Council, as the US is bound to do by treaty, and insist on the delivery to a court of justice of anyone responsible for the crimes. If no appropriate court could be found, then one could be created, as they were for the Lockerbie terrorist attack and the Balkan war crimes. If the US has evidence that a state was involved, it should be presented to the International Court of Justice, the World Court, which has declared states guilty of terrorism before and demanded that they make restitution. (Admittedly, it was the US that was judged guilty of terrorism.) Suppose that the effective government of Afghanistan, say, although it said that it was willing to turn over Osama bin Laden to a court if the US produces evidence, refuses the Security Council’s demand to do so. At this point a UN military force, drawn from disinterested countries — i.e., no Russians, Americans, Pakistanis, or Iranians, all of whom have territorial interests in Afghanistan — should be authorized by the Security Council to retrieve those people whom it denominates.

Instead, the US has launched a war that may result in the deaths of millions in the next few months. And then this week the FBI floated a trial balloon, suggesting that it might have to use torture on some of more than 1,130 people detained, many illegally, in the course of the investigation! CP

Carl Estabrook teaches at the University of Illinois and is the host of News From Neptune, a weekly radio show on politics and the media. He writes a regular column for CounterPunch.

 

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
September 21, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Alexandra Isfahani-Hammond
Hurricane Florence and 9.7 Million Pigs
Andrew Levine
Israel’s Anti-Semitism Smear Campaign
Paul Street
Laquan McDonald is Being Tried for His Own Racist Murder
Brad Evans
What Does It Mean to Celebrate International Peace Day?
Nick Pemberton
With or Without Kavanaugh, The United States Is Anti-Choice
Jim Kavanagh
“Taxpayer Money” Threatens Medicare-for-All (And Every Other Social Program)
Jonathan Cook
Palestine: The Testbed for Trump’s Plan to Tear up the Rules-Based International Order
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: the Chickenhawks Have Finally Come Back Home to Roost!
David Rosen
As the Capitalist World Turns: From Empire to Imperialism to Globalization?
Jonah Raskin
Green Capitalism Rears Its Head at Global Climate Action Summit
James Munson
On Climate, the Centrists are the Deplorables
Robert Hunziker
Is Paris 2015 Already Underwater?
Arshad Khan
Will Their Ever be Justice for Rohingya Muslims?
Jill Richardson
Why Women Don’t Report Sexual Assault
Dave Clennon
A Victory for Historical Accuracy and the Peace Movement: Not One Emmy for Ken Burns and “The Vietnam War”
W. T. Whitney
US Harasses Cuba Amid Mysterious Circumstances
Nathan Kalman-Lamb
Things That Make Sports Fans Uncomfortable
George Capaccio
Iran: “Snapping Back” Sanctions and the Threat of War
Kenneth Surin
Brexit is Coming, But Which Will It Be?
Louis Proyect
Moore’s “Fahrenheit 11/9”: Entertaining Film, Crappy Politics
Ramzy Baroud
Why Israel Demolishes: Khan Al-Ahmar as Representation of Greater Genocide
Ben Dangl
The Zapatistas’ Dignified Rage: Revolutionary Theories and Anticapitalist Dreams of Subcommandante Marcos
Ron Jacobs
Faith, Madness, or Death
Bill Glahn
Crime Comes Knocking
Terry Heaton
Pat Robertson’s Hurricane “Miracle”
Dave Lindorff
In Montgomery County PA, It’s Often a Jury of White People
Louis Yako
From Citizens to Customers: the Corporate Customer Service Culture in America 
William Boardman
The Shame of Dianne Feinstein, the Courage of Christine Blasey Ford 
Ernie Niemi
Logging and Climate Change: Oregon is Appalachia and Timber is Our Coal
Jessicah Pierre
Nike Says “Believe in Something,” But Can It Sacrifice Something, Too?
Paul Fitzgerald - Elizabeth Gould
Weaponized Dreams? The Curious Case of Robert Moss
Olivia Alperstein
An Environmental 9/11: the EPA’s Gutting of Methane Regulations
Ted Rall
Why Christine Ford vs. Brett Kavanaugh is a Train Wreck You Can’t Look Away From
Lauren Regan
The Day the Valves Turned: Defending the Pipeline Protesters
Ralph Nader
Questions, Questions Where are the Answers?
Binoy Kampmark
Deplatforming Germaine Greer
Raouf Halaby
It Should Not Be A He Said She Said Verdict
Robert Koehler
The Accusation That Wouldn’t Go Away
Jim Hightower
Amazon is Making Workers Tweet About How Great It is to Work There
Robby Sherwin
Rabbi, Rabbi, Where For Art Thou Rabbi?
Vern Loomis
Has Something Evil This Way Come?
Steve Baggarly
Disarm Trident Walk Ends in Georgia
Graham Peebles
Priorities of the Time: Peace
Michael Doliner
The Department of Demonization
David Yearsley
Bollocks to Brexit: the Plumber Sings
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail