We hold these Truths to be self-evident...
"I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery.... Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty towards the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings." - Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775. “Give me liberty or give me death” speech.
"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematical plan of reducing us to slavery." - Thomas Jefferson, August 1774. Rights of British America
Men and women in uniform swear an oath to protect and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC. Military training includes the command that Americans do not follow unlawful orders; they must be refused and action taken within legal authority to end them. The US Constitution clearly states in Article Six:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Among the most important treaties is the UN Charter; a Treaty in Force under US law, enacted after two global wars that bind all nations to only defensive wars against other nations that have attacked. This simple rule, more simple than many rules in sports we master in understanding, does not include an attack upon a nation from allegations that a resident within a country initiated a terror attack. According to the leadership of the FBI and CIA, there was no evidence of Afghan government participation in the 9/11 attacks.
The primary understanding is that war is an unlawful order, an illegal government act, unless a nation is acting in self-defense upon the direct attack from another nation’s government. Any other act of war, unless expressly authorized by the UN Security Council, is a War of Aggression, a war of choice.
Wars of Aggression are the single most destructive act a government can take. When Congress and the US President fail to act lawfully in war, the public and those working in military, government and law enforcement are the last defense against mass-murder from the US government.
The US invasion is unlawful also because the UN Security Council resolved on September 28, 2001 in Resolution 1373 to “remain seized of the matter,” that is, to take jurisdiction of policy. The US is bound therefore from military action:
"…the Council decided that States should afford one another the greatest measure of assistance for criminal investigations or criminal proceedings relating to the financing or support of terrorist acts…the Council called on all States to intensify and accelerate the exchange of information regarding terrorist actions or movements…States were also called on to exchange information and cooperate to prevent and suppress terrorist acts and to take action against the perpetrators of such acts. States should become parties to, and fully implement as soon as possible, the relevant international conventions and protocols to combat terrorism….“Recognizing the need for States to complement international cooperation by taking additional measures to prevent and suppress, in their territories through all lawful means…Afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with criminal investigations or criminal proceedings relating to the financing or support of terrorist acts, including assistance in obtaining evidence in their possession necessary for the proceedings…Find ways of intensifying and accelerating the exchange of operational information…Exchange information in accordance with international and domestic law and cooperate on administrative and judicial matters…Cooperate, particularly through bilateral and multilateral arrangements and agreements…Increase cooperation and fully implement the relevant international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism…Take appropriate measures in conformity with the relevant provisions of national and international law…Decides to remain seized of this matter."
Previous Americans fought in World War 2 to forever prevent future Wars of Aggression. It was this war that forged the London Charter, also known as the Nuremberg Principles, another US Treaty in Force, that provides the basis for US military training that Americans must never “just follow orders.” Specifically under Principle IV:
"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him".
Although the preceding is sufficient to come to the painful realization that the majority of Congress and several US Presidents have and are issuing unlawful orders, there’s more:
- The Afghan campaign includes evidence of unprosecuted torture and indefinite imprisonment, both violations of the Geneva Convention.
- The US supports an unlawfully elected government in Afghanistan according to expert testimony of US representative to the UN monitoring the Afghan election Peter Galbraith, US Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eickenberry, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, the British Ambassador to Afghanistan, and Malalai Joya, Afghan politician.
- By their own admission of accounting, the US Department of Defense “loses” trillions of our tax dollars and will not investigate the loss. This is criminal in scope and cover-up.
- According to the CIA, civilian military command refused to end the alleged but unlawful reason for war by capturing Osama bin Laden in 2001.
- The Afghan government volunteered to assist the US with extradition of Osama bin Laden upon presentation of any evidence of guilt of any crime. President Bush, Commander in Chief of the US military, unlawfully refused to provide evidence and unlawfully dictated: "There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty." Following UN Security Resolution for lawful action made any military action by President Bush illegal.
- The Iraq campaign is equally unlawful (here and here).
President Obama has escalated an unlawful US war in Afghanistan with orders for 30,000 more troops. While it might appear easy for an academic like me to list reasons in an article, it is up to the men and women in the military to make the difficult decision if their orders are lawful or not. Those who see the orders as unlawful who have the intellectual integrity and moral courage to engage their authority to refuse can expect their good-faith ethical action to be met with contempt, denial of serious discussion on legal basis for those orders, threats, punishment, and ultimately court martial.
If a counter-argument is attempted, Congressional authorization will be pointed to. Congress has no authority under the UN Charter to authorize a non-defensive war. UN Security Council authorizing of international assistance in Afghanistan AFTER US invasion might be pointed to. This does not change the unlawful invasion and cover-up of a War of Aggression that should be settled first, especially entering the 9th year of covering-up the crime. This perspective by law professor Francis Boyle might also help.
It might be helpful to recall that Abraham Lincoln also stood against a US President for an unlawful invasion. Please take a few moments and read what George Washington asked you to do regarding unlawful orders. Please read the Founding Fathers' words of warning that Americans must have courage to stand against unlawful orders or we would lose our freedoms to tyrants under false claims of national security.
Here is my hub article listing my articles relevant to unlawful war in Afghanistan.
My policy recommendation has two prongs:
- US military, law enforcement, and government officials should honor their oath to defend the US Constitution and refuse and end unlawful orders related to unlawful wars according to their legal authority for action. Oath Keepers is a leading organization for this idea.
- Truth and Reconciliation should exchange full disclosure and ending of all unlawful and harmful acts for non-prosecution.
Below is a 15-second reminder that Mr. Obama lied about ending current wars during his campaign, and two powerful videos from PuppetGov.
As always, please share this article with all who assert their political competence. If you appreciate my work, please subscribe by clicking under the article title (it’s free). Please use my archive of articles to help build a brighter future.
Comments
Hey genius, the UN Security Council has authorized the international presence in Afghanistan. So even if that were somehow a legitimate legal argument to overthrow the president's authority as commander-in-chief, which it is not, it still would be a losing argument. Where do you come up with this idiocy?
Genius JamesB:
You should try reading the article’s title to answer that question, and then read the article for the reasoning.
From the article: Among the most important treaties is the UN Charter; a Treaty in Force under US law, enacted after two global wars that bind all nations to only defensive wars against other nations that have attacked. This simple rule, more simple than many rules in sports we master in understanding, does not include an attack upon a nation from allegations that a resident within a country initiated a terror attack.
The primary understanding is that war is an unlawful order, an illegal government act, unless a nation is acting in self-defense upon the direct attack from another nation’s government. Any other act of war, unless expressly authorized by the UN Security Council, is a War of Aggression, a war of choice.
The commander-in-chief serves the US Constitution, James, an important point. Choose carefully if that’s worth taking seriously.
Sorry, you are still a moron. International treaties cannot usurp the authority granted the president under the constitution. If that were true then what would prevent the president from simply signing a treaty, for example, granting the Queen of England the authority to execute all truthers on site and making it official US law irreversable by any court or legislature?
And since you are incapable of reading.
Resolution 1386 (2001)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 4443rd meeting, on
20 December 2001
The Security Council,
Reaffirming its previous resolutions on Afghanistan, in particular its
resolutions 1378 (2001) of 14 November 2001 and 1383 (2001) of 6 December
2001,
Supporting international efforts to root out terrorism, in keeping with the
Charter of the United Nations, and reaffirming also its resolutions 1368 (2001) of 12
September 2001 and 1373 (2001) of 28 September 2001,
James B:
I cited the Constitution in the article: treaties are “the supreme law of the land.” Presidents swear an oath to uphold the Constitution; therefore they must also uphold treaties. Treaties must also be ratified by 2/3 Senate vote and are different from US law. US law can be declared unconstitutional in Federal Court.
You should really hold civil discussions, James, if a civil world is one you want to live on.
I address the Resolutions in the article. My point is that US invasion took place after the UN Security Council took jurisdiction and resolved for cooperation under the law. The US then invaded, against Resolution 1373, the War Powers Act in US law to honor the UN Charter, and the UN Charter itself.
The serious point for our men and women in service, law enforcement, and government to consider is that the invasion was unlawfully ordered and executed.
" My point is that US invasion took place after the UN Security Council took jurisdiction and resolved for cooperation under the law. "
The US invaded in October 2001, as you can tell from the post I made earlier, the UN authorized this action in December. At a later date it reauthorized it.
Resolution 1386 (2001)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 4443rd meeting, on
20 December 2001
It is hard to be civil when discussing an issue with a moron, sorry. If you say something intelligent, I will respond respectfully. I am still waiting for that though.
Article II Section 2 of the US consitution gives the president the authority to make treaties, with Senate agreement, it does not, however, give the treaty authority over the US constitution. That authority is a figment of your feverish imagination.
JamesB:
You’re wrong. The invasion took place expressly against UNSC 1373, the War Powers Act and the UN Charter. The invasion was illegal. 1386 authorized an international presence at that point in December, not the invasion in October. I trust readers to see the difference.
You’re wrong about the US Constitution. Treaties become the supreme law of the land. Read some constitutional scholarship. This means that the UN Charter is the law of the US as long as it is a Treaty in Force.
Specifically, this means that all wars are illegal except for defensive wars against an attacking NATION. Read the link from law professor Francis Boyle that cites the Director of the FBI confirming they had no information of the Afghan government involved in the September 11 attacks.
Choose your future well, JamesB. If you want freedom, embrace justice under the law and respect the oath to protect and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
James, you'll notice Herman not only uses half-truths and atypical interpretations concerning the UN - he completely ignores the OTHER treaty that has a major role in the Afghanistan war: NATO.
He's a throwback to the moonbats of the '60s.
OK, so if it were currently sometime between October and December 2001, you might have a point, albeit a weak one, but I checked my calender and it is December 2009, and the military presence in Afghanistan is authorized by the UN, so you are still an idiot.
And if you actually read the constituion, what it is saying is that the constitution and treaties are above state and local laws, not that treaties are above the authority of the constitution itself. Do some research and you will find court decisions supporting this.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
Wow and readers following:
The choice is between an extension of a history of violent antagonism of Wars of Aggression (like our current illegal wars), or rational defensive action under law, as legislated in the UN Charter.
Choose carefully the future you want.
My father and only uncle served in WW2 to end Wars of Aggression. The UN Charter was written to do just that: all wars are unlawful except defensive military response upon attack from another nation, or UN Security Council authorization for military missions.
The UN Charter is a Treaty in Force with Constitutional authority as the “supreme law of the land.”
Current wars are obvious violations of the trigger-point for legal war. Therefore, all orders concerning these wars are unlawful and should be refused and stopped per legal authority.
Choose carefully: cooperation, justice under law, dignity, and freedom OR unlawful wars that kill millions and destroy lives for multiples more, fear, and paying $ trillions.
JamesB:
Again: The invasion took place expressly against UNSC 1373, the War Powers Act and the UN Charter. The invasion was illegal. 1386 authorized an international presence at that point in December, not the invasion in October. I trust readers to see the difference.
You’re wrong about the US Constitution. Treaties become the supreme law of the land. Read some constitutional scholarship. This means that the UN Charter is the law of the US as long as it is a Treaty in Force.
Specifically, this means that all wars are illegal except for defensive wars against an attacking NATION. Read the link from law professor Francis Boyle that cites the Director of the FBI confirming they had no information of the Afghan government involved in the September 11 attacks.
Choose your future well, JamesB. If you want freedom, embrace justice under the law and respect the oath to protect and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
I've heard time and time again from people attempting to combat me on my opinion that every individual is responsible for their own actions. They say such asinine things as "Well if everyone refused orders intead of following them then we would never accomplish anything.". To that, I have one question; Where are all the Nazis who were just following orders? Oh, that's right, we executed them because they WERE responsible for their own actions.
Like I said, James - Herman has his version of 'history' that bears little resemblance to reality.
With this latest crap, he's lucky we don't have sedition laws anymore - although it could be fun to watch if some military member refused to deploy claiming Herman influenced their decision.
He is a good reminder why those of us outside California call it the 'Granola State.'
Wow:
What am I saying that is false? List it.
Oh,let's start with your false claim that the initial conflict in Afghanistan did not meet the definition of 'defensive war.'
Of course, it's much easier for you to make that claim when you deny the 9/11 attacks were planned and funded from inside Afghanistan by al Qaeda members who were protected by the then-existing Taliban government who they were paying off.
wow:
You didn't read very deeply: the FBI and CIA confirmed no evidence of the Afghan government's participation or approval of the 9/11 attacks. Read Professor Boyle's paper linked in the article.
It takes a while to see the big picture, most never do. Some can, but would rather argue, or irritate others. Some like to get technical, and focus on trivialities. For this topic, I think it's important to think about who really runs the UN and NATO, and what their agenda is....and why they would use the excuse of 9/11 to go to Afghanistan and Iraq. Now Mr herman's article makes complete sense.
YOU didn't read deeply - Boyle said, at best, that they hadn't FOUND evidence IN AFGHANISTAN about the AFGHAN GOVERNMENT as of sometime in 2002.
There was, however, plenty of other evidence that 1) al Qaeda members had planned and financed the attacks from inside Afghanistan and 2) bin Laden had made significant payments to Mullah Omar and others to ensure a 'safe haven' inside Afghanistan.
And Boyle completely ignores that bin Laden was already under indictment concerning earlier attacks and the Taliban government had refused to even discuss extradition in the months before 9/11.
Ok, please explain exactly WHY they wanted to start a war in Afghanistan?
The still non-existent pipeline? The opportunity to get into a counter-insurgency war with people who have been doing it for centuries - and who drove out the Soviets little more than a decade earlier?
Whatever reason, you'll be hard pressed to demonstrate how the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld team achieved whatever goals you think they were after in their inept management of the war.
wow- Why DO they want Their proxy WarMachine in Afgh? What is there? What changed? Instead of debating, TELL us.
Wow: what are the legal requirements for war according to the UN Charter? If you find they were fulfilled in the US invasion of Afghanistan, explain how. The War Powers Act Congress authorized also expressly states the Commander-in-Chief is bound to all treaties in his actions, with the main treaty governing war as the UN Charter.
Regarding why the US went to war, that’s speculation beyond the point of this article: the war is non-defensive against a nation the CIA and FBI found no evidence that they were involved in an attack on the US, and the UN Security Council resolved to hold jurisdiction over the matter and did not authorize force. Therefore, it is an unlawful war that all men and women in the military, government, and law enforcement should refuse and stop through exercising whatever legal authority they have to act.
I don't get it. What part of "the UN Security Council has repeatedly authorized the US presence in Afghanistan" are you failing to comprehend? It isn't that difficult of a concept. Am I using too big of words for you?
JamesB:
First, be civil in your comments or I will delete them.
Again: The invasion took place expressly against UNSC 1373, the War Powers Act and the UN Charter. The invasion was illegal. 1386 authorized an international presence at that point in December, not the invasion in October. I trust readers to see the difference.
You’re wrong about the US Constitution. Treaties become the supreme law of the land. Read some constitutional scholarship. This means that the UN Charter is the law of the US as long as it is a Treaty in Force.
Specifically, this means that all wars are illegal except for defensive wars against an attacking NATION. Read the link from law professor Francis Boyle that cites the Director of the FBI and the CIA confirming they had no information of the Afghan government involved in the September 11 attacks.
Are you capable of actually answering a question, or are you going to simply cut and paste the same meaningless statement repeatedly?
Ok, Herman - explain how ANY of your 'defensive war' argument even applies to Afghanistan in fall 2001- WHEN IT DID NOT HAVE A LEGALLY RECOGNIZED GOVERNMENT.
The UN never accepted the Taliban as a legitimate government - so there was no 'nation' to wage 'aggressive war' against in the first place.
And NOW the legal justification - for the US, for NATO and for the UN - is that the now-recognized-as-legitimate government has asked for help.
Legally - you are simply wrong.
conspiracy nut - how about we went to war in Afghanistan exactly for the reasons we said: to take out al Qaeda and take down the illegitimate regime that was protecting them?
The fact that the Bush administration screwed up the job is a separate issue.
JamesB and wow: war is illegal unless attacked by a nation. Any other security concern goes to the UN Security Council. That’s the limitation on war nations agreed to after two global wars.
After 9/11, the UN Security Council “seized the matter,” that is, claimed jurisdiction for policy.
The US illegally attacked in October, 2001 because the US was not attacked by a nation, the CIA and FBI agreed there was no evidence linking the Taliban to 9/11, the Taliban volunteered to help get bin Laden upon evidence of his involvement in a crime, and the UN Security Council expressly resolved for international cooperation and law enforcement.
This war is one of choice and legally classified as a War of Aggression.
The Taliban was not a legal government and had no legal extradition treaty, so any "promise" was just smoke and mirrors.
But on the more fundamental level, please describe the exact "illegal attack in October 2001" with precise dates and description of units involved.
This is not nitpicking - this goes to the central point of your argument, so you should be able to support it.
wow:
Then you're agreeing that the UN Security Council would have lawful jurisdiction, as they resolved, to manage post-9/11 security concerns, because a lawful war can only commence against a nation's government's act of war.
On October 7, 2001 the US initiated war with Afghanistan with airstrikes. Invasion and occupation followed. Your point of greater detail of teh history of the US invasion is...?
"On October 7, 2001 the US initiated war with Afghanistan with airstrikes. Invasion and occupation followed. Your point of greater detail of teh history of the US invasion is...? "
That you are incorrect in your most basic premise.
The US did NOT initiate war - it commenced combat support of Afghan groups claiming to represent a legitimate government, with military advisors and air strikes REQUESTED BY THE AFGHANS fighting to remove the illegitimate Taliban government.
From the first insertion of CIA and SF advisors up through the fall of the Taliban and the implementation of an interim Afghan government UNDER UN auspices, all US and coalition military actions were requested or approved by the anti-Taliban Afghan forces.
Legally, it has never been a 'war' in the sense of the US and NATO vs Afghanistan - it has been military support of anti-Taliban forces, the Afghan Interim Authority and ultimately the constituional government of Afghanistan.
wow- Was 9/11 done by Arabs and Afghans?
Good point, wow, that the legitimacy of the Taliban government was disputed. However, that doesn't change two important legal requirements for war.
1. The UN Security Council seized the issue and resolved for cooperation, sharing of criminal information, and justice under law. The US military strike violated the UN seizure of the issue.
2. US acts of war by the request of a disputed government is not self-defense from a national attack.
Ok, your turn. Given those two points, how was US acts of war on Afghanistan (rather than with) legal under the UN Charter?
" The US military strike violated the UN seizure of the issue."
The UN Security Council "seized" the issue from the General Assembly, not from the President of the United States. They do not have the authority to override the US Consitution. Unless you are one of those New World Order illuminati types.
"Ok, your turn. Given those two points, how was US acts of war on Afghanistan (rather than with) legal under the UN Charter? "
Uhh, easy. The UN Security Council endorsed our presence. Are you telling them that they are wrong?
JamesB:
The UN Charter is a treaty; according to the Constitution a treaty is the “supreme law of the land.” The purpose of this is so the US doesn’t screw-over other nations and we keep our word when the president and 2/3 of the Senate agree.
The US attacked in October, after the Security Council resolved for cooperation, sharing of information, and justice under the law. The US violated that resolution with their attack. The UN didn’t endorse US attack or presence. In December, they authorized a coalition. That doesn’t change the legal status of attacking in October.
I’m telling you that you’re wrong in your understanding of the Constitution and the legal requirements for war in the UN Charter and from the Security Council on this specific issue.
This is three times around on this issue, JamesB. You’re being irresponsible for not understanding our constitution and the simple rules to tell the difference between legal and illegal war.
I've read thru the comments here. It does seem as though in essence Mr Herman you are saying that The UN and it's treaties supersede the US Constitution and indeed the Soveriegnity of the US itself ( or any other Sovereign Nation).
There are those who think the US should leave the UN. And it would seem as events unfold that they are probably right.
Confused:
You should do some homework to understand what the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution means in Article VI:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
This means treaties are of EQUAL weight of law with the Constitution and Congress; states must not conflict with this “supreme” set of laws. This is basic high school government info, with all respect.
“There are those”? “It would seem”? Do you have a problem with the US being bound with only defensive wars? You prefer the lawless US invasions become unrestrained? You’re not appalled by US wars based on lies that have murdered over a million people???
State your argument if you have one.
Because the US did NOT 'attack' - they engaged in support of an ally who requested it. NO air strikes were made except at the request of the anti-Taliban forces, and no US combat forces were inserted until the new government requested them, except for the single Delta/Ranger raid on the main al Qaeda camp. (Raids, which have a limited objective and rapid withdrawal of forces, fall under a different category than war under International Law.)
That's why the UN has never censured or otherwise disputed the US actions - they were not illegal in any sense.
I understand your quote. Now I will quote for you the 9th and 10th amendments. #9 The Enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO DENY OR DISPARAGE OTHERS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE. #10 The Powers NOT delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, ARE RESERVED FOR THE STATES RESPECTIVELY, OR TO THE PEOPLE.
Did we have a treaty with Afghanistan? The United Nations is what? A membership club. With countries as members. Membership can be given up. Which I think is high time that the US did. As my first suspicion was right...You are one of those who see the UN as the legitimate power OVER and ABOVE any NATIONAL interests(of any Nation not just the USA).
One of The rights that "The People" understand is the right to self defense. Al qaida bombed us, al qaida was head-quartered in Afghan. If you are advocating the UN tell us when we can or can't defend ourselves based on "treaties"...then it is time to say adios UN.
Confused: You don’t seem to understand at all the design of a treaty’s power in the Constitution.
We have a treaty with the UN to limit war as a foreign policy. I doubt you’ve read the Charter. The UN allows for self-defense, otherwise war is illegal. I’m good with that limitation in this area, which is about all the UN Charter limits. You seem to want war whenever our government says it’s in our national interests. Be careful for what you choose.
The legal question is whether US action was “defensive” in Afghanistan. Wow’s statement requires me to look into the history of who the UN has recognized as Afghan’s government. At first glance, the US saying we’re coming to the aid of an ally seems as ridiculous as the Soviet Union saying the same thing when they invaded and killed about a million Afghans from 1979-1988. And both the USSR and US actions violate the purpose of non-defensive wars. But I’ll look further before responding to wow.
I think maybe it is you who do not understand. Many Americans don't care what the UN "allows" for. That is the point.
The second point is that YOU seem to be advocating UN control of our foreign policy based on your quotation of the Constitution Article vi. If this is what you are advocating then as I said; many Americans feel it is time to leave the UN. I don't really care about "their charter". I understand having a treaty with another sovereign country...but with a "chartered" organization or club?? Maybe illegal is a term to describe what has gone on with the UN for a long time.
There are many Americans who do not feel loyalty to the UN as you Mr Herman. And by saying that is not saying they believe in war at any time our gov't chooses.
But listening to you has been instuctive. I've learned that the UN's power and tenticles reach far. I am more and more inclined to view the UN in criminal light as time goes on. And I see the Bill of Rights is not respected by UN supporters
" The US military strike violated the UN seizure of the issue."
The UN Security Council "seized" the issue from the General Assembly, not from the President of the United States. They do not have the authority to override the US Consitution. Unless you are one of those New World Order illuminati types.
"Ok, your turn. Given those two points, how was US acts of war on Afghanistan (rather than with) legal under the UN Charter? "
Uhh, easy. The UN Security Council endorsed our presence. Are you telling them that they are wrong?
Confused: You advocate against the US Constitution and specifically for Wars of Aggression if a nation concludes that is in their best interest. Fine. Unless you also want to destroy the 1st Amendment, you’re welcome to advocate.
A charter is a type of treaty; do you look anything up? And your further comments indicate you haven’t read the UN Charter. Why don’t you do that and then have an informed opinion? That’s just a general recommendation so you won’t be “confused.”
Either way, you are welcome to whatever policy position you feel is best.
JamesB: You've reposted your comment like five times after I addressed it below. Do you have a point, or just want to be annoying?
wow:
Your reason for war was not stated in the US Ambassador to the UN's letter explaining the attack. This is what you wrote: "they engaged in support of an ally who requested it. NO air strikes were made except at the request of the anti-Taliban forces."
Compare with Negroponte's letter to Un Security Council President from October 7, 2001.
I use the handle for continuity. I am not confused about my loyalties...and to be fair neither are you. I am loyal to this country and the protection of our Constitutional Representative Republic. You twist intentions and words like the best of fifth columnests. I quoted you The Bill of Rights (which you ignored--a telling point in and of itself)because it emphasizes the early struggle to ensure a Government that truely was of, by and for the people RATHER THAN a Government enthroned for its own glory and growth. THAT was my point of Amend. 9&10.
You are loyal to the aspects of the Constitution which embody language that is friendly to International rather than our own National interests. I don't argue that Article VI says what it says. Only with the assumption that it trumps the Bill of Rights. Which basically I think you believe...because it is the UN that you are MOST loyal to.
But fear not we BOTH agree on Amend.1;so see that oleBill'A'Rights has use after all, even for UN.
And has the Security Council, or any part of the UN, or the International Court even suggested that US & NATO operations in Afghanistan were/are illegal???
See, YOU may see things through your own unique vision - but the folks who actually are responsible for making such determinations, whether US military courts, US civilian courts or the international community as represented in NATO, the UN and the Hague, disagree with you.
Wow:
You are correct, none have exercised any action to suggest so.
The conclusion that they believe their acts as within the letter and spirit of the UN Charter is another argument, wow. It is entirely possible, and I argue probable given the obvious facts (that you are welcome to interpret otherwise), that “leadership” knows this war is unlawful and they are in collusion to realize a hidden political agenda outside the law.
So in the end, we come to:
1) You agree the wars are "legally" legal despite your repeated claims that they are simply illegal and your implications that any court would find they were illegal.
2) Your retreat to an X-Files grand conspiracy theory where all the major and most minor governments, government officials and bureaucrats, are all engaged in a secret plot to enact "a hidden political agenda" that only Carl Herman, the unemployed high school teacher, can uncover and explain.
That pretty much sum it up, Mulder?
3. Soon, wow, the US will be similar to Germany after WW2. The public will embrace the harsh realities of Wars of Aggression, torture, destruction of habeas corpus, the transfer of trillions of our dollars to banksters, and that’s just what I can easily prove and not delving into the more complicated burdens of proof for more devilish acts. You should consider the role you want, wow. I think you’re helpful to people who want the truth, because you’re writing the strongest arguments opposing what I’m claiming is clear and convincing objective and independently verifiable facts. For those reading the comments, you present important counter-arguments. But that doesn’t change your personal consideration of how you want to participate in responding to the US fall into fascism. I didn’t watch The X-Files, but Mulder was right all along. Are you making a Freudian admission, wow?
Hi wow:
1. No. The wars are obviously illegal in the letter and spirit of the laws of war. Read my new article, “US war laws explained, why Afghanistan and Iraq wars are unlawful, how to end them.” No one has yet officially challenged the US in the legal venue of the UN, as far as I know. In a criminal trial a jury would determine violation of law in engaging in these wars given the evidence and applicable law.
2. No. The “leaders” of the Dems and Reps engage in what I demonstrate are obvious lies, yes. On the Left, you have people around Dennis Kucinich and Alan Grayson resisting. On the Right, Ron Paul. And it’s not hidden, wow. Anyone can see what I’m pointing to, and hundreds of writers I cite in my detailed explanations of our wars contribute to our eventual “the emperor has no clothes” realization. More…
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!