The 9/11 Tragedy
In the deadliest terrorist assault in U.S. history, nineteen al-Qaeda members hijack four commercial airliners and crash two into the World Trade Centre towers in New York City and one into the Pentagon outside of Washington, DC. The fourth plane crashes in rural Pennsylvania after passengers try to wrestle back control. The attacks, which killed 2,977 people, are the culmination of nearly a decade of efforts by Osama bin Laden-motivated by radical Islamist ideology-to kill American soldiers and civilians.

Later investigations find that the hijackers, most of them Saudi nationals, entered the United States and attended flight training schools largely without raising alarms. CIA Director George Tenet later says that "the system was blinking red," but despite White House briefings on the bin Laden threat, intelligence agencies and domestic law enforcement failed to share crucial information.[1]

After the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) invokes its collective self-defence mechanism for the first time, U.S. and UK forces begin air strikes against targets in Afghanistan. Ground forces follow within days. The U.S.-led invasion, called Operation Enduring Freedom, is supported by local anti-Taliban forces and troops from twenty-seven coalition countries. By December, the Taliban government collapses, but bin Laden evades capture.

NATO assumes command of international security operations in 2003, and the occupation and counterinsurgency mission in Afghanistan continues for nearly two decades. President George W. Bush signs into law a joint resolution authorizing the use of force against those responsible for attacking the United States on 9/11.

This joint resolution will later be cited by the Bush administration as legal rationale for its decision to take sweeping measures to combat terrorism, from invading Afghanistan, to eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without a court order, to standing up the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

After tracking al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden to the well-equipped Tora Bora cave complex southeast of Kabul, Afghan militias engage in a fierce two-week battle (December 3 to 17) with al-Qaeda militants. It results in a few hundred deaths and the eventual escape of bin Laden, who is thought to have left for Pakistan on horseback on December 16-just a day before Afghan forces capture twenty of his remaining men.

Doha US-Taliban Colourable Agreement [2]
The United States and the Taliban signed an agreement aimed at ending the eighteen-year war in Afghanistan, but many factors could still disrupt the peace process. Following nine rounds of discussions, negotiators signed a peace agreement in February 2020 that addresses four main issues: Intra-Afghan negotiations. The Taliban agreed to start talks with the Afghan government in March 2020.

Throughout the negotiating process, the Taliban had resisted direct talks with the government, calling it an American puppet. But the Taliban has more recently indicated that talks are possible, with deputy Taliban leader Sirajuddin Haqqani writing in a New York Times op-ed, "If we can reach an agreement with a foreign enemy, we must be able to resolve intra-Afghan disagreements through talks."

Counterterrorism assurances. The United States invaded Afghanistan following the September 11, 2001, attacks largely to eliminate the threat of terrorism, so it seeks to halt terrorist activities in the country, including by al-Qaeda and the self-proclaimed Islamic State. As part of the agreement, the Taliban guaranteed that Afghanistan will not be used by any of its members, other individuals, or terrorist groups to threaten the security of the United States and its allies.

U.S. officials have also stressed protecting women's rights. Prior to the 2001 overthrow of the Taliban, the group shuttered girls' schools and prevented women from working, among other abuses. This issue could be discussed during intra-Afghan talks.

Cease-fire. Negotiators agreed to a temporary reduction in violence and said that a lasting cease-fire among U.S., Taliban, and Afghan forces will be part of intra-Afghan negotiations.

Withdrawal of foreign forces. The United States agreed to reduce its number of troops in the country from roughly 12,000 to 8,600 within 135 days. If the Taliban follows through on its commitments, all U.S. and other foreign troops will leave Afghanistan within fourteen months. Experts have cautioned that pulling troops out too quickly could be destabilizing.

Intra-Afghan negotiations. The Taliban agreed to start talks with the Afghan government in March 2020. Throughout the negotiating process, the Taliban had resisted direct talks with the government, calling it an American puppet. But the Taliban has more recently indicated that talks are possible, with deputy Taliban leader Sirajuddin Haqqani writing in a New York Times op-ed, "If we can reach an agreement with a foreign enemy, we must be able to resolve intra-Afghan disagreements through talks."

Counterterrorism assurances. The United States invaded Afghanistan following the September 11, 2001, attacks largely to eliminate the threat of terrorism, so it seeks to halt terrorist activities in the country, including by al-Qaeda and the self-proclaimed Islamic State. As part of the agreement, the Taliban guaranteed that Afghanistan will not be used by any of its members, other individuals, or terrorist groups to threaten the security of the United States and its allies.

The last U.S. military forces depart Afghanistan, leaving it under Taliban rule. The exit follows a chaotic, two-week withdrawal process during which more than 120,000 people are evacuated. The next day, President Biden says the United States should learn from its mistakes and that the withdrawal marks the end of "an era of major military operations to remake other countries.

On February 11, 2022, the US President Biden issued an executive order invoking emergency powers to consolidate and freeze all $7 billion of the total assets the Afghan people kept in New York to compensate victims of the 9/11 attacks and for relief efforts. Afghanistan's economy has collapsed and up to eight million people are facing starvation, that is in turn creating an enormous and destabilizing new wave of refugees - and raising a clear need for extensive spending on humanitarian relief. [3]

Afghanistan has over $9 billion in reserves - including just over $7 billion in reserves held in the United States. The rest are largely in U.K., Germany, Switzerland, and the UAE. Most of the assets that are in the U.S. come from assistance that the U.S. and international donors have provided to the Afghan government over the past two decades.[4]

US President Joe Biden seized $7 billion in assets belonging to the previous Afghan government, aiming to split the funds between compensation for victims of the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States and desperately needed aid for post-war Afghanistan[5]. There is something wrong with a financial system where one State can unilaterally block the national assets of another to pay off questionable claims by its own citizens. In fact, The US government, and the Taliban both are the cause of current humanitarian disaster in Afghanistan.

The president of the United States of America claims to have exercised legal authority under � 1701 of the Constitution of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act that provides the president broad authority to regulate a variety of economic transactions following a declaration of national emergency.

But this is not the US asset to exercise, nor Biden is not the president of Afghanistan to exercise his power over of Afghanistan. These are the reserves of the Afghan people; they're not the reserves of the Taliban. US sends the wrong message to the people of Afghanistan about what role the United States is playing in terms of responding to the humanitarian, and really to the economic crisis that Afghan people experiencing. Is this the destruction of a nation?,

What is the role of Afghan civilian to 9/11 attacks? Why USA does not pay compensation to the Afghan civilian who are the victims of arm conflicts? The US Constitution provision on the emergency power of president read as follows;

1701. Unusual and extraordinary threat; declaration of national emergency; exercise of Presidential authorities [6]

1. Any authority granted to the President by section 1702 of this title may be exercised to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat.
2. The authorities granted to the President by section 1702 of this title may only be exercised to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared for purposes of this chapter and may not be exercised for any other purpose. Any exercise of such authorities to deal with any new threat shall be based on a new declaration of national emergency which must be with respect to such threat.

1702. Presidential authorities[7]

1. 
   
   1. At the times and to the extent specified in section 1701 of this title, the President may, under such regulations as he may prescribe, by means of instructions, licenses, or otherwise:
      1. investigate, regulate, or prohibit:
         
         1. Any transactions in foreign exchange,
         2. Transfers of credit or payments between, by, through, or to any banking institution, to the extent that such transfers or payments involve any interest of any foreign country or a national thereof,
         3. The importing or exporting of currency or securities, by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States;
             
      2. Investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition, holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; and
          
      3. When the United States is engaged in armed hostilities or has been attacked by a foreign country or foreign nationals, confiscate any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, of any foreign person, foreign organization, or foreign country that he determines has planned, authorized, aided, or engaged in such hostilities or attacks against the United States; and all right, title, and interest in any property so confiscated shall vest, when, as, and upon the terms directed by the President, in such agency or person as the President may designate from time to time, and upon such terms and conditions as the President may prescribe, such interest or property shall be held, used, administered, liquidated, sold, or otherwise dealt with in the interest of and for the benefit of the United States, and such designated agency or person may perform any and all acts incident to the accomplishment or furtherance of these purposes.
   2. In exercising the authorities granted by paragraph (1), the President may require any person to keep a full record of, and to furnish under oath, in the form of reports or otherwise, complete information relative to any act or transaction referred to in paragraph (1) either before, during, or after the completion thereof, or relative to any interest in foreign property, or relative to any property in which any foreign country or any national thereof has or has had any interest, or as may be otherwise necessary to enforce the provisions of such paragraph. In any case in which a report by a person could be required under this paragraph, the President may require the production of any books of account, records, contracts, letters, memoranda, or other papers, in the custody or control of such person.
      
      The authority granted to the President by this section does not include the authority to regulate or prohibit, directly or indirectly:
      
      1. Any postal, telegraphic, telephonic, or other personal communication, which does not involve a transfer of anything of value;
      2. donations, by persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, of articles, such as food, clothing, and medicine, intended to be used to relieve human suffering, except to the extent that the President determines that such donations (A) would seriously impair his ability to deal with any national emergency declared under section 1701 of this title, (B) are in response to coercion against the proposed recipient or donor, or (C) would endanger Armed Forces of the United States which are engaged in hostilities or are in a situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances; or

1703. Consultation and reports[8]

1. Consultation with Congress. The President, in every possible instance, shall consult with the Congress before exercising any of the authorities granted by this chapter and shall consult regularly with the Congress so long as such authorities are exercised.
2. Report to Congress upon exercise of Presidential authorities Whenever the President exercises any of the authorities granted by this chapter, he shall immediately transmit to the Congress a report specifying:
   
   1. The circumstances which necessitate such exercise of authority;
   2. Why the President believes those circumstances constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States;
   3. The authorities to be exercised and the actions to be taken in the exercise of those authorities to deal with those circumstances;
   4. Why the President believes such actions are necessary to deal with those circumstances; and
   5. Any foreign countries with respect to which such actions are to be taken and why such actions are to be taken with respect to those countries.
3. Periodic follow-up reports At least once during each succeeding six-month period after transmitting a report pursuant to subsection
4. of this section with respect to an exercise of authorities under this chapter, the President shall report to the Congress with respect to the actions taken, since the last such report, in the exercise of such authorities, and with respect to any changes which have occurred concerning any information previously furnished pursuant to paragraphs (1) through (5) of subsection (b) of this section.
5. Supplemental requirements the requirements of this section are supplemental to those contained in title IV of the National Emergencies Act [50 U.S.C.A. � 1641].

Under � 1702. (b) Par 2 the US president have power to withhold any donation by any person for relieve of human suffering. Most of the assets that are in the U.S. come from assistance that the U.S. and international donors have provided to the Afghan government over the past two decades.[9]

The US president Executive order with regard to freezing innocent people is unconstitutional it is against the sovereignty of the Afghanistan and it is violation of Human rights. Under � 1703 of US constitution the US president shall make Consultation with congress and has to show the decision is of national importance and presenting a report. Whereas in the above decision. In the light of the provision of US constitution it unconstitutional and it is colourable order with a mala fide intention. There is frankly moral hazard in putting billions into Afghanistan right now.

The United Nations issued an appeal to the international community last month for its largest-ever aid ask, saying $4.4 billion was needed as "a full-blown humanitarian catastrophe looms." According to estimates by the World Food Program, only 2% of Afghans will have enough to eat this winter.[10] The US government invaded and destroyed Afghanistan resource, environment and committed heinous war crime, then withdraws haphazardly empowered the Taliban.

And then they loot all the money in the name of humanitarian cause. Why the US government is silent to pay compensation for the Afghan innocent people who were remained the victim of US- Bin Laden game. It is very clear, who supports the terrorist and where is their root. Why the Saudi Arabia does not pay the compensation as the Bin Laden was a national of Saudi Arabia under International law he is the subject of the Saudi Arabia.

There are dozens of countries such as China, Pakistan, Iran and Russia which has direct involvement with terrorist networks not being responsible. Sadly, today innocent Afghan starving due to the US arm conflict and strategic benefits.

This is wrong in many ways and the part about the money being distributed as humanitarian aid doesn't make it any better. Such aid is routinely wasted as anyone with the slightest familiarity with the matter knows. It is also not the point. What Afghanistan needs is a functioning economy that will offer people employment, not aid doled out as some kind of favour. But that is impossible while its banks are crippled by US sanctions.

Now, having devoted 20 years to building up and overseeing a massively corrupt regime whose officials stole much of the central bank's reserves, they are confiscating the rest. No one much likes the Taliban but there is no alternative to them now except civil war and anarchy. This policy seems designed to encourage that.

This is a national disgrace, and the United States has a long history of such behaviour. - The Bhopal gas poisoning disaster in 1984 has killed an estimated 20,000 and severely affected 50,000 +, but Union Carbide paid the current equivalent of $860 million in compensation ($100, 000 each) , with the venal US Courts disallowing any US litigation for compensation.[11]
In contrast the BP Oil spill in the Gulf[12] caused environmental damage, killed no one, but the US courts imposed a $21 Billion fine (current equivalent $27 billion) to compensate wealthy American Gulf homeowners.[13]

Biden, besides being increasingly incoherent and error prone, is proving to be a huge disappointment as unprincipled and opportunistic - besides screwing up wholesale the Afghan evacuation, he went ahead for political, not military reasons, to get it out of the way in front of the 2022 half term elections.

The despicable theft of funds from a starving country, with parents selling their kidneys, with absolutely no case for Afghanistan to answer is solely an attempt by a politician sinking beneath the waves to play to a short-term domestic audience. Contemptible for the US and a US President - with no reliance the US courts will set right.

The US government funded and nurtured the predecessor to the Taliban, the Mujahideen of whom Osama Bin Laden was a prominent leader were funded by Reagan[14]. The Mujahideen were tied to us and by descent the same people would be in the Taliban. Post 9/11 the Taliban offered Osama to Bush on condition he be tried in a pin international court. He declined.[15]

There is currently a lack of clarity within the international community regarding recognition of a government in Afghanistan, as a consequence of which the country cannot access SDRs (special drawing rights) or other IMF resources.

The previous Afghan government had deposited over $7 billion assets - including currency, bonds and gold - on deposit at the Federal Reserve Bank in New York before the Taliban took over Afghanistan in August 2021. Since then, the Fed has made those funds unavailable for withdrawal.

The Federal Reserve Bank in New York had option to let the assets sit untouched, gathering interest and release to a future legitimate Afghan government which get international recognition.

Whether funds belonging to the Afghan central bank are the Taliban's? obviously not. The Taliban group has earned that money. The money was not deposited by the Taliban government. The FRB bank has to act as the banker. It is was the contract of bailment between previous government and FRB. It is the breach of trust and the FRB does not act as a bona fide bailee. If the bailee makes any use of the goods bailed, which is not according to the conditions of the bailment, he is liable to make compensation to the bailor for any damage arising to the goods from or during such use of them.

A bailment is the delivery of goods by one person to another for some purpose upon a contract. As per the contract, the goods should when the purpose is accomplished, be returned or disposed of as per the directions of the person delivering the goods. The person delivering the goods is called the bailer and the person to whom the goods are delivered is called the bailee.

Banks secure their loans and advances by obtaining tangible securities. In certain cases banks hold the physical possession of secured goods (pledge) - cash credit against inventories; valuables - gold jewels (gold loans); bonds and shares (loans against shares and financial instruments) In such loans and advances, the collateral securities are held by banks and the relationship between banks and customers are that of bailee (bank) and bailer.

After the September 11 attacks, Washington invaded Afghanistan and has had a military presence in the country since the early 2000s. Outside of the countless loss of human life and human rights violations committed by the US, various corruption cases have indicated that a number of American companies ended up being awarded lucrative contracts.

Eradicating the Taliban was a core driver of the US invasion in 2001 but the group was empowered in the country by a colourable agreement to deceive the world. Most Afghans live in poverty, violence still reaches record highs and, ironically, the Taliban find itself in a power in Kabul.

According to recent estimates on Human Cost of the Post-9/11 Wars: Lethality and the Need for Transparency, by the Brown University, the US war on Afghanistan killed more than 2,400 American troops and nearly 40,000 Afghan civilians.[16]

Afghanistan is in a major humanitarian crisis: the health sector is failing, the economy is collapsing, and amid the COVID pandemic, famine is inflicting ever-larger numbers of casualties. According to the most recent report by the UN World Food Programme, more than half of the resident population of 38 million are facing acute hunger and 3.2 million children under five suffer from malnutrition.[17] The situation has been made worse by several other factors: drought, dependency on international aid and high unemployment rates.

Droughts, combined with the suspension of foreign aid in the aftermath of the Taliban's takeover, have led to a dire economic situation, with recent reports indicating that some families in the northwest are selling their children out of desperation. Food and fuel prices are soaring. USD 7 billion frozen assets belong to no government, but to the people of Afghanistan.

President Biden's order signed freed $7 billion in Afghan assets currently held in the United States, to be divided between 9/11 victims and humanitarian aid to Afghans is atrocity against Afghan people. In fact, the USA government has to pay the compensation for the victims of 9/11 and victim of war crime in Afghanistan. US government has failed to maintain security of the US due to his negligence why Afghan civilian should suffer?

The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) should act as the banker for entire world and should not be the instrumentality of the USA. The funds belong to the Afghan people as represented by the overthrown Islamic Republic.

The IMF acts as both a financing and an adjustment-oriented international institution for the benefit of its members. It has been providing financial assistance to the deficit countries to meet their temporary disequilibrium in BOP. The Fund aims at promoting exchange rate stability. In its early phase, the Fund made arrangements of avoidance of competitive exchange depreciation. It has made an attempt to solve the problem of international liquidity.

To create international liquidity, Special Drawing Rights (SDRs)-an artificial currency-were created in 1969 as foreign exchange reserves to benefit the developing countries in particular. SDR allocations are made to member countries to finance the BOP deficits.

Truly speaking, the IMF is incapable of taking independent policy decisions. It complies with the 'orders' of the superpowers. Further, it has minimal influence over the policy decisions of the major industrial powers. In these cases, its mandate to exercise 'firm surveillance' over some influential members or superpowers is virtually meaningless -it has no influence over the US deficits or European interest rates.

The core questions are: to whom do the reserves belong, and does the United States, or any other country holding Afghan reserve deposits, have the legal or moral authority to seize and spend them, even if with worthwhile intent? The funds belong to the Afghan people as represented by the overthrown Islamic Republic. There is no legitimate, recognized successor to that duly constituted government, which was recognized the world over.

As a legal matter, US courts should conclude that all the Afghan reserves should be recognized as the property of the Afghan people and a legitimate Afghan government, and thus are not available to satisfy 9/11 victims' claims against the Taliban. As a policy matter, the United States should hold Islamic Republic of Afghanistan reserves in escrow until such time as there is a recognized, constitutional government to take possession of them on behalf of the Afghan people.

By splitting the money to ostensibly pay for the aid to Afghanistan, and earmarking $3.5 billion of it in the United States to settle the legal claims against the Taliban by the families of the victims of the 9/11 attacks, the decision could have detrimental consequences for US interests and security. It would also push Afghanistan into an even more dangerous cliff of socioeconomic collapse.

Finally, the freeze of Afghanistan's foreign assets is tied to the question of the Taliban's legitimacy. No government so far - including staunch supporter Pakistan - has officially recognised the Taliban's government. Freezing Afghanistan's assets was a political decision by US president Joe Biden. Afghan civilians should not be subjected to starvation in a bid to pressure a government they did not put in office.

Saudi Arabian terrorist and founder of the Pan-Islamic militant organisation Al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Ladin, was killed in Pakistan and that the "people of Afghanistan should not pay for his activities. Osama bin Laden was not brought to Afghanistan by Afghans. He was expelled from Sudan in 1996. He was brought in by foreigners from Pakistan and then he returned to Pakistan. But now the Afghan people are paying the price for Pakistan's actions.

No doubt the people of Afghanistan share the pain of the American people, share the pain of the families and loved ones of those who died, who lost their lives in the tragedy of September 11. The Afghan reserves represent the hard-won earnings and savings of the Afghan people and play a critical function for the economy, backing the currency of Afghanistan.

It should go without saying that Afghans were not responsible for the 9/11 terror attack. President Biden's extraordinary decision to take funds which belong to the Afghan people and give them instead to families of 9/11 victims has the effect not only of pitting victims against victims, but of punishing Afghans for 9/11. Afghans have, on the contrary, been the victims of both Taliban violence and the so-called "war on terror." Today, as they face devastating humanitarian and human rights crises with millions on the verge of starvation, this cynical decision is both cruel and baffling.

The Biden administration to evenly split a large chunk of sovereign Afghan central bank assets, estimated at over $7 billion, to pay for more humanitarian aid through international organizations, and keep half in escrow to settle possible lawsuit claims by 9/11 victims' families, has made matters worse for average Afghan families unable to feed their children, and unleashed a barrage of reactions ranging from utter disbelief and revulsion to muted support by special interest political groups.

Conclusively, US invade into Afghanistan in 2000 to eradicate the terrorist in the country this was the decision after the 9/11 the effect of which was not only to US government but the attack and affect the life so many innocent people from different countries. 9/11 is the cause of 20 years blood shade in Afghanistan, Taliban is not a legitimate government recognized neither by the Afghans people nor the UN the funds of the Afghan Government reserved in IMF should be stored and utilized for the benefits of the innocent people of Afghan who have suffered a lot and not to the victims of 9/11 which the Afghanis people has nothing to do with the attack. If US wants to compensate from the Afghan funds then the US government also has to compensate for commits War crime in Afghanistan.

End-Notes:

1. Timeline: How 9/11 Reshaped Foreign Policy Council on Foreign Relations, https://www.cfr.org/timeline/how-911-reshaped-foreign-policy (last visited Feb 17, 2022)
2. U.S.-Taliban Peace Deal: What to Know, Council on Foreign Relations (2022), https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-taliban-peace-deal-agreement-afghanistan-war (last visited Feb 17, 2022).
3. Afghanistan: Watching the destruction of a nation? BBC News, https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-60296254 (last visited Feb 16, 2022)
4. Biden splitting frozen Afghanistan funds in two. Here's how it would be divided. Cbsnews.com, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-afghanistan-funds-911-families-humanitarian-aid/ (last visited Feb 17, 2022)
5. The Diplomat, Taliban Takeover: World Bank and IMF Halt Aid; US Freezes Afghan Assets Thediplomat.com (2022), https://thediplomat.com/2021/08/taliban-takeover-world-bank-and-imf-halt-aid-us-freezes-afghan-assets/ (last visited Feb 17, 2022).
6. 50 U.S. Code � 1701 - Unusual and extraordinary threat; declaration of national emergency; exercise of Presidential authorities LII / Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1701 (last visited Feb 16, 2022)
7. 18 U.S. Code � 1702 - Obstruction of correspondence, LII / Legal Information Institute (2022), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1702#:~:text=Whoever%20takes%20any%20letter%2C%20postal,the%20person%20to%20whom%20it (last visited Feb 16, 2022).
8. 50 U.S. Code � 1703 - Consultation and reports, LII / Legal Information Institute (2022), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1703#:~:text=The%20President%2C%20in%20every%20possible,as%20such%20authorities%20are%20exercised. (last visited Feb 16, 2022).
9. Biden splitting frozen Afghanistan funds in two. Here's how it would be divided. Cbsnews.com, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-afghanistan-funds-911-families-humanitarian-aid/ (last visited Feb 17, 2022)
10. Aid to Taliban-Controlled Afghanistan a 'Moral Hazard,' US Lawmakers Say, VOA (2022), https://www.voanews.com/a/aid-to-taliban-controlled-afghanistan-a-moral-hazard-us-lawmakers-say/6434757.html (last visited Feb 16, 2022).
11. Shashikant Trivedi, Bhopal gas tragedy: US court rejects case against Union Carbide Business-standard.com (2022), https://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/bhopal-gas-tragedy-us-court-rejects-case-against-union-carbide-113070100049_1.html (last visited Feb 17, 2022).
12. Gulf Oil Spill, Smithsonian Ocean (2022), https://ocean.si.edu/conservation/pollution/gulf-oil-spill (last visited Feb 17, 2022).
13. BP agrees to pay US$18.7 billion to settle Deepwater Horizon oil-spill claims - Nature, Nature (2022), https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.17907 (last visited Feb 17, 2022).
14. Fred Kaplan, How Reagan made a terrorist kingpin of Osama. Slate Magazine (2022), https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2004/06/how-reagan-made-a-terrorist-kingpin-of-osama.html (last visited Feb 17, 2022).
15. Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over, the Guardian (2022), https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5 (last visited Feb 17, 2022).
16. Watson.brown.edu (2022), https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2018/Human%20Costs%2C%20Nov%208%202018%20CoW.pdf (last visited Feb 17, 2022).
17. Releasing US$9.5 billion in frozen assets can't help the Afghan people as long as the Taliban remain in power, The Conversation (2022), https://theconversation.com/releasing-us-9-5-billion-in-frozen-assets-cant-help-the-afghan-people-as-long-as-the-taliban-remain-in-power-173927 (last visited Feb 16, 2022).

Written By: Sayed Qudrat Hashimy