We hold these Truths as self-evident...
Attorney and law professor Marjorie Cohn is at the forefront of legal argument that current US wars are unlawful. Below is her latest article as another voice to mine explaining how these wars are not even close to the legal qualification of self-defense.
- Understand the laws of war. These were legislated after WW2 and are crystal-clear that only self-defense, in a narrow legal meaning, can justify war. This investment of your time takes less than an hour and empowers you to legally stand for ending these Wars of Aggression.
- Communicate. Trust your unique, beautiful, and powerful self-expression to share powerful information as you feel appropriate. Understand that while many people are ready to embrace difficult facts, many are not. Anticipate your virtuous response to being attacked and give it in the spirit of competition, just as you do in other fields.
- Refuse and end all orders and acts associated with these unlawful wars and constant violation of treaties. Those involved with US military, government, and law enforcement have an oath to protect and defend the US Constitution. Unlawful acts only move forward with sufficient cooperation and public tolerance. Stop cooperating with the most vicious crime a nation can commit: war.
- Support global security through cooperation, dignity, justice, and freedom. End poverty through global cooperation to achieve the UN Millennium Goals by developed countries investing 0.7% of their income. End extremism by providing all humanity with an opportunity to live a life of peaceful creativity.
- Prosecute the war leaders for obvious violation of the letter and spirit of US war laws. You can only understand how these wars are specifically unlawful by investing the time to do so. Because the crimes are so broad and deep, I recommend Truth and Reconciliation (T&R) to exchange full truth and return of stolen US assets for non-prosecution. This is the most expeditious way to understand and end all unlawful and harmful acts. Those who reject T&R either by volunteering their name and/or responding when named are subject to prosecution after the window of T&R closes.
In 1945, in the wake of two wars that claimed millions of lives, the nations of the world created the United Nations system to "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war." The UN Charter is based on the principles of international peace and security as well as the protection of human rights. But the United States, one of the founding members of the UN, has often flouted the commands of the charter, which is part of U.S. law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.
Although the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was as illegal as the invasion of Iraq, many Americans saw it as a justifiable response to the attacks of September 11, 2001. The cover of Time magazine called it "The Right War." Obama campaigned on ending the Iraq war but escalating the war in Afghanistan. But a majority of Americans now oppose that war as well.
The UN Charter provides that all member states must settle their international disputes by peaceful means, and no nation can use military force except in self-defense or when authorized by the Security Council. After the 9/11 attacks, the council passed two resolutions, neither of which authorized the use of military force in Afghanistan.
"Operation Enduring Freedom" was not legitimate self-defense under the charter because the 9/11 attacks were crimes against humanity, not "armed attacks" by another country. Afghanistan did not attack the United States. In fact, 15 of the 19 hijackers hailed from Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, there was not an imminent threat of an armed attack on the United States after 9/11, or President Bush would not have waited three weeks before initiating his October 2001 bombing campaign. The necessity for self-defense must be "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." This classic principle of self-defense in international law has been affirmed by the Nuremberg Tribunal and the UN General Assembly.
Bush's justification for attacking Afghanistan was that it was harboring Osama bin Laden and training terrorists, even though bin Laden did not claim responsibility for the 9/11 attacks until 2004. After Bush demanded that the Taliban turn over bin Laden to the United States, the Taliban's ambassador to Pakistan said his government wanted proof that bin Laden was involved in the 9/11 attacks before deciding whether to extradite him, according to the Washington Post. That proof was not forthcoming, the Taliban did not deliver bin Laden, and Bush began bombing Afghanistan.
Bush's rationale for attacking Afghanistan was spurious. Iranians could have made the same argument to attack the United States after they overthrew the vicious Shah Reza Pahlavi in 1979 and the U.S. gave him safe haven. If the new Iranian government had demanded that the U.S. turn over the Shah and we refused, would it have been lawful for Iran to invade the United States? Of course not.
When he announced his troop "surge" in Afghanistan, Obama invoked the 9/11 attacks. By continuing and escalating Bush's war in Afghanistan, Obama, too, is violating the UN Charter. In his speech accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, Obama declared that he has the "right" to wage wars "unilaterally." The unilateral use of military force, however, is illegal unless undertaken in self-defense.
Those who conspired to hijack airplanes and kill thousands of people on 9/11 are guilty of crimes against humanity. They must be identified and brought to justice in accordance with the law. But retaliation by invading Afghanistan was not the answer. It has lead to growing U.S. and Afghan casualties, and has incurred even more hatred against the United States.
Conspicuously absent from the national discourse is a political analysis of why the tragedy of 9/11 occurred. We need to have that debate and construct a comprehensive strategy to overhaul U.S. foreign policy to inoculate us from the wrath of those who despise American imperialism. The "global war on terror" has been uncritically accepted by most in this country. But terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy. One cannot declare war on a tactic. The way to combat terrorism is by identifying and targeting its root causes, including poverty, lack of education, and foreign occupation.
In his declaration that he would send 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan, Obama made scant reference to Pakistan. But his CIA has used more unmanned Predator drones against Pakistan than Bush. There are estimates that these robots have killed several hundred civilians. Most Pakistanis oppose them. A Gallup poll conducted in Pakistan last summer found 67% opposed and only 9% in favor. Notably, a majority of Pakistanis ranked the United States as a greater threat to Pakistan than the Taliban or Pakistan's arch-rival India.
Many countries use drones for surveillance, but only the United States and Israel have used them for strikes. Scott Shane wrote in the New York Times, "For the first time in history, a civilian intelligence agency is using robots to carry out a military mission, selecting people for targeted killings in a country where the United States is not officially at war."
The use of these drones in Pakistan violates both the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit willful killing. Targeted or political assassinations -- sometimes called extrajudicial executions -- are carried out by order of, or with the acquiescence of, a government, outside any judicial framework. As a 1998 report from the UN Special Rapporteur noted, "extrajudicial executions can never be justified under any circumstances, not even in time of war." Willful killing is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions, punishable as a war crime under the U.S. War Crimes Act. Extrajudicial executions also violate a longstanding U.S. policy. In the 1970s, after the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence disclosed that the CIA had been involved in several murders or attempted murders of foreign leaders, President Gerald Ford issued an executive order banning assassinations. Although there have been exceptions to this policy, every succeeding president until George W. Bush reaffirmed that order.
Obama is trying to make up for his withdrawal from Iraq by escalating the war on Afghanistan. He is acting like Lyndon Johnson, who rejected Defense Secretary Robert McNamara's admonition about Vietnam because LBJ was "more afraid of the right than the left," McNamara said in a 2007 interview with Bob Woodward published in the Washington Post.
Approximately 30% of all U.S. deaths in Afghanistan have occurred during Obama's presidency. The cost of the war, including the 30,000 new troops he just ordered, will be about $100 billion a year. That money could better be used for building schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and creating jobs and funding health care in the United States.
Many congressional Democrats are uncomfortable with Obama's decision to send more troops to Afghanistan. We must encourage them to hold firm and refuse to fund this war. And the left needs to organize and demonstrate to Obama that we are a force with which he must contend.
Comments
Let the U.S. appropriate one-half of the Pentagon's budget and give it to education. That makes sense. The biggest killers, theives, and liars in the world are all political leaders. Just look at it and tell me differently. With the current leadership, only more sufferring can be guarenteed.
anyone feel a draft?
So f'ing what? It simply don't matter! It doesn't matter, at all, if the war is illegal. It will continue. No opinion on the legality of it will cause it to end, because the people that are pushing the war aren't restrained by the law.
Uh, excuse me sir? Mr. Burglar man? I noticed how you are stealing my stuff. Uh, you may not realize that you are committing a crime, so can you please stop?
Sheesh.
Puh-leeze:
What kind of American are you to abandon limited government under the Constitution? It’s not an opinion of an illegal act when the first baseman pulls a gun and shoots the runner coming to first. But what, you’re not interested investing the hour to understand the laws when you understand a hundred more complicated rules in various sports. Yeah, you’re right, the lying sacks of spin sworn to uphold the Constitution don’t restrain themselves to the law, but your burglar analogy is full of it. We’re talking about our government under our flag and with our tax dollars committing mass murder. Choose carefully what is and is not a f’ing deal to you. You’re declaring yourself only fit by rule under tyranny.
Let us, as Christians and westerners, never forget their hatred towards us and forgive them for their apparently harmless wisecracks; for surely, these lovable Edomites and Turko-Mongols, who were never the Children of Israel, must be joking when they say:
"We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets of our air force." Israeli military tactician and professor Martin Crevald [5].
Let us consider the ponderings of the Bolshevik Jewish racial supremacist, Menachem Begin:
"Our race [speaking of the Ashkenazim false Jews and Edomites] is the Master Race. We are divine gods on this planet. We are as different from the inferior races as they are from insects. In fact, compared to our race, other races are beasts and animals, cattle at best. Other races are considered as human excrement. Our destiny is to rule over the inferior races. Our earthly kingdom will be r
Our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our leader with a rod of iron. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves." June 25, 1982, as quoted as an enhancement of Rabbi Schneerson's racist claims in the 'New Statesman'.
Yet Satanic asslickers, such as John Hagee, Barack Obama and the demonically selfish and unscrupulous Hillary Clinton, will not hear one word against a people who have always, and will continue, to despise hard-working Americans and Europeans. Let's name just a small sample of the Jews who have hated and despised America; who have betrayed, and whose ilk will always continue to betray, America and the English people:
Carl: If only these ideas could be enacted. Yet more proof of the distortions as outlined here. As an American living in London, I was taken aback when the news hit that Tony Blair will be tried for war crimes in Iraq. I wondered why the current US admin. didn't support the same for Bush and Cheney. But it is patently clear that there is no difference between what is now and what was then in terms of ethos and intent. It's just more murdering, more lies and endless suffering at the hands of a few. Peaceful protests are ignored. Now what?
Teri:
We’ll see how far justice moves forward for Mr. Blair. The US won’t prosecute because both parties’ “leadership” is in collusion for having endless war and all the other crimes. We need to keep moving forward, as best we can discern. Some events seem to require time for circumstances to adjust; perhaps like waiting for greater light during a dark December. Be of good cheer and know millions stand with you in heart and mind. Keep moving forward.
Too bad she has to base her argument on the lie that Bush initiated an October 2001 bombing campaign.
Instead of defending enablers of convicted terrorists like Lynne Stewart, maybe Cohn should start by reading some of the excellent reportage about what Operation Enduring Freedom really was: an effort to assist an existing ally in removing a corrupt and illegitimate government from their nation, a government that had provided protection for the terrorists behind 9/11.
It was taking sides in an existing civil war; at least argue about the truth, not fantasies.
I suppose Cohn would argue the US intervention in the Russian civil war was illegal, too. Any military historian will tell you it was stupid but I've never seen any argue it was illegal.
Jake:
You haven’t invested the hour to understand the applicable law and argue from ignorance. Yet, I bet you understand a hundred more complex rules in sports. Choose carefully where you invest your attention and the wars/murders/destruction/misery you justify. You might have to live in the world of your choosing. The alternative Ms. Cohn and I present is justice under the law rather than unrestrained armed attacks. Your call.
Anyone who will take the time to study the Arch. and Engineers 911 data will prove to themselves that it was not our enemies that took down the twin towers, but our own government, or whatever you want to call them. The War against Terror is a war against America. How did Americans get so stupid that they could get away with that? Yes, these wars are illegal, Duh!
Carl Herman: You don't seem to understand my point. It doesn't matter if an act is illegal if there is no one to prosecute it. This war is illegal. So what. No one in any position to stop it will do so. No one with any power to stop it will do so.
You seem to think that because it's "our" government we can control it. We can't. You seem to think that we can choose where "our" tax dollars are spent. We can't.
Obama was elected in large part to end the war. He chose not only to not stop it, but expand it. What can we do about it? Nothing. We simply don't have the power to affect any change. The American experiment is over. It ended in despotism, just like all other governments have.
An illegal act isn't illegal if no one will prosecute it. The same goes for an illegal war.
The citizens best defense is to avoid the BankingPowers WarMachine (us military) and oppose Their War. Alas, your avg sheeple is brainwashed and braindead.
About point #3:
Yes, so we should all stop paying U.S. federal income
taxes. Stop paying the people who are violating int'l laws with impunity!
U.S. federal income taxes are unconstitutional (not ratified in
accordance with the U.S. Constitution - according to "The Law that
Never Was: The Fraud of the 16th Amendment and Personal income Tax", etc.). www.amazon.com/law-that-never-was-Amendment/dp/B0006ELT78/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246119763&sr=1-2
Said taxes are also illegal, according to the well-supported idea that the U.S. government and military are terrorist organizations, which commonly violate international law. According to U.S. law, it is a crime to financially support terrorists - therefore, we should not support terrorists in Washington.
Finances are the Achilles heel of 'Uncle Sam' - no money, no bloated
politician salaries, no military-industrial complex! (^o^)
"Let them march all they want, as long as they continue to pay their taxes."
-Alexan
Any American who pays federal income tax, knowing that 'Uncle
Sam' will spend over 1/2 of its discretionary budget on the
bloodthirsty, socially-destructive killing machine AKA "The Pentagon",
and also supports another rogue state AKA "Israel", IMO becomes
indirectly complicit in the crimes the US military/CIA/NSA/Israel
military carry out.
(An overall history of some of those U.S. crimes is in the book "Rogue State, 3rd Edition: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower", by William Blum
(www amazon com/Rogue-State-3rd-Worlds-Superpower/dp/1567513743/ref=pd_sim_b_1).
Also, a very detailed history is compiled in "Killing Hope: U.S.
Military and C.I.A. Interventions Since World War II-Updated Through
2003" (www amazon com/Killing-Hope-C-I-Interventions-II-Updated/dp/1567512526/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261985835&sr=1-1
). )
So please consider joining the Tax Resistance Movement:
http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_resister
www warresisters org/node/328
Henry David Thoreau: "If a thousand men [and women] were not to pay
their tax-bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody
measure, as it would to pay them, and enable the State to commit
violence and shed innocent blood."
-----
From http ://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/1675 :
"...Anti-militarist tax resisters are fond of noting Principle IV of
the Nuremberg Principles... "The fact that a person acted pursuant to
order of his Government or of a superior," the Principle reads, "does
not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided
a moral choice was in fact possible to him." The moral choice for
Milner is clear: withhold taxes from the government, in spite of the
unpredictable risks. ..."
The consequences for war tax resistance are unpredictable, as are most
direct actions for peace, so please think carefully about what you do,
before acting. I for one know what I wanted to do, and am doing it.
At http ://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/1675, again :
"... The majority of tax resisters redirect federal income tax money
independently, choosing to donate to a wide variety of local, national
and international peace and justice organizations in critical need of
financial support. ..."
-------
We all must make decisions based upon our circumstances and conscience. Then we are each individually responsible for our decisions. I have made mine, and feel good in my heart about it. I hope you have the courage to do what your conscience advises you to do... After all, which is more frightening - the thought of going to prison, or the thought of being partly responsible for the bullets & bombs killing Iraqi/Afghani/American/etc. children? (Oh, and one more thing about the CIA - several writers have stated that it appears the CIA is profiting from drug running from Afghanistan! Just another thing to think about...)
----
Sam Bolivar
StrivingForJustice @ yah
"Let them march all they want, as long as they continue to pay their taxes."
-Alexander Haig, U.S. Sec. of State, June 12, 1982
"The sinews of war are infinite money."
-Marcus Tullius Cicero, Roman statesman (BCE)
-----
Finances are the Achilles heel of 'Uncle Sam' - so please do consider joining the Tax Resistance Movement. Below are some links, grouped together:
www .warresisters.org/node/328
History of War Tax Resistance
http ://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/1675
Anti-War Activists Promote ‘Tax Resistance’ As Direct Protest
by Martha Baskin
http ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_resister
3.1 Redirection
3.2 Refusing specific taxes
3.3 Refusing to pay
3.4 Paying under protest
3.5 Tax avoidance
3.6 Tax evasion
3.7 Reducing expenditure and income
********************
Thanks for all the good you do.
Sam Bolivar
StrivingForJustice @ yahoo.com
I refer you to the excellent report on "60 Minutes" last night, where the former CIA officer who headed the Afghan operation in fall 2001 & early 2002 makes clear AGAIN (this has been extensively reported) that the MAXIMUM number of U.S. personnel in Afghanistan that fall was never more than 48 CIA and less than 100 Special Operations Forces, supporting the anti-Taliban forces.
You claim to be a historian; explain how you "invade" a nation with less than 150 people.
It was neither an invansion nor an occupation; the U.S. government says that, NATO says that AND the UN says that - but most importantly, the Afghan Government says that.
As for "investing the hour," blow it out your butt - I was involved in the laws concerning warfare while you were still in diapers, kid.
Jake:
With all respect, the letter and spirit of the UN Charter eliminates armed attacks as a foreign policy option. You omit the little detail of bombing Afghanistan and violently overthrowing the government. That’s war, Jake. It’s unlawful.
NATO uses the same justification as the US; claiming an armed attack by Afghanistan on 9/11 against a NATO country. Do you agree that’s what happened? The government of Afghanistan did 9/11? Nobody has evidence linking the Taliban to 9/11. The UN didn’t object to the US attack, except later the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan stated the US invasion of Iraq was illegal.
Until you can speak the argument Marjorie Cohn and I make accurately, you still need to invest the hour to understand it, Jake. With all respect, you are unqualified to refute it until you can accurately represent it. Otherwise, from a professional standpoint, all you have for credibility in your refutation is what generally blows out of peoples’ butts.
No, the argument is an armed attack FROM Afghanistan, not "by" Afghanistan - considering neither the US, NATO, the EU not the UN recognized the Taliban as a legitimate government, there are no grounds to support an argument that it was an attack against a legitimate government.
And it cannot be an "occupation" when the legally recognized government asks for military assistance.
I understand your 'argument' - and it is built on false premises.
Cohn: "The UN Charter provides that all member states must settle their international disputes by peaceful means, and no nation can use military force except in self-defense or when authorized by the Security Council."
The Taliban was NOT recognized as a legitimate government, therefore it was not a "member state" and the Charter provision is not applicable.
Jake:
Thank you for the clarification. When the UN Security Council “seized the matter” it became their call under the UN Charter. They asked for international cooperation under law. The US violated UN Security Council Resolution 1373 by attacking (“no nation can use military force”) in October, 2001. This violates the letter and spirit of the treaty, the UN Charter, to eliminate war as a foreign policy option. You are defending mass murder, a War of Aggression, a loveless policy of domination. This is your call, Jake. Choose wisely the world you wish to live in.
This hellish war now includes Pakistan and Yemen. Do you want Iran attacked also, Jake?
I call bullsh!t. First, you deliberately misuse "seized" as used by the Security Council - it simply means the SC takes ownership of the issue inside the UN, separate from the General Assembly.
Then you deliberately mislead, attempting to imply that 1373 (or 1368 before it) says anything at all about the use of military force.
You further ignore the fact that the UNITED STATES introduced and backed 1373 - making your argument the ridiculous one that the US government asked the Security Council for a resolution forbidding it from doing what it was planning to do.
Domination?? Crap, we're already setting a timetable to pull out!
What, exactly, do YOU think Afgahnistan was all about - since you seem incapable of accepting it was intended to get the bastards behind 9/11?
Jake:
The UN Security Council has authority over use of force outside of Article 51; they took jurisdiction and resolved cooperation under the law. Force is not allowed unless authorized; I stand by my summary of 1373. The US flagrantly violates law; they use it only when it serves their purposes and posture their support with empty rhetoric if it doesn’t.
My point is it’s unlawful. And given UNICEF’s report that this is the most dangerous place on earth to be born, yeah, domination: vicious, brutal, loveless, and evil.
As to discovery of what’s really behind the invasion and occupation, I recommend a Truth and Reconciliation process, as I explain above and in detail in an article.
Obama’s alleged timetable has been contradicted by his McCrystal and Karzai, btw. You really didn’t believe Obama, did you?
You still ignore 1) the fact the US introduced and requested 1373, making your argument ridiculous on its face and 2) that subsequent Security Council resolutions effectively endorsed the US actions by recognizing the government that replaced the Taliban government.
No where did the Security council forbid the US from using military force to assist an ally in their internal conflict - for that matter, I challenge you to find anything in any of the relevant resolutions that specifically forbids the use of military force post-9/11.
In fact, the relevant phrase of 1373 is:
"2. Decides also that all States shall:...
(e) Ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or in supporting terrorist acts is brought to justice and ensure that, IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER MEASURES AGAINST THEM (emphasis added), such terrorist acts are established as serious criminal offences in domestic laws and regulations and that the punishment duly reflects the seriousness of such terrorist acts; "
That clearly implies that criminal penalties are only part of the approved measures for dealing with terrorists - with this and other passages clearly indicating that nations (the USA, in this case) could do whatever was necessary to bring terrorists to justice - specifically NOT EXCLUDING use of military force.
As for Obama, McChrystal and Karzai, the differences are only of timing and the need to remain adaptive to changing conditions - all three agree that US combat forces need to leave Afghanistan within a workable timeframe.
So does the existing counter-insurgency doctrine.
I'd expect at least some withdrawal by that 2011 date.
Jake:
1) Your defense is ridiculous; you don’t understand the point of the UN. The UN Charter demands NO MILITARY FORCE ALLOWED AT ANY TIME EVER EVER EVER unless under Article 51 with that narrow definition of self-defense (“sudden, no other option, overwhelming, no time for deliberation”) from an “armed attack” (defined as from a nation’s government) until the Security Council acts. Force must be expressly allowed or it is unlawful. This is the main point you either don’t get and thus show the propaganda value of 1373, or you’re a professional propagandist trying to fool others. Either way, you’re wrong about what the UN is for and its laws of war.
Oh, the US called-in NATO under Article 51, despite the obvious facts an attack 4 weeks later is retribution and not self-defense, this was an act of terror not an armed attack, and the Taliban had offered standard cooperation for arrest and extradition upon evidence of involvement. The US refused that offer and attacked.
No, YOU don't get it - or deliberately are spinning your own propaganda.
THERE WAS NO LEGAL GOVERNMENT IN AFGHANISTAN - so all your UN Charter stuff would be moot even if you were correctly interpreting it, which you are not.
Evidence? Look at the facts: The Taliban never went to the UN to file a protest; in fact, NO ONE has filed anything claiming the US actions violated the UN Charter, either with the UN or with any international judicial body.
If you and Cohn are so convinced you are right, GO TO COURT.
Otherwise, you're just rabble rousing and - in YOUR case - committing the crime of encourageing mutiny by military members.
With that in mind, if the U.S. Government was one-tenth as evil as you and your sychophants believe, you'd already be in a secret prison - or dead.
Jake:
Good luck with that world-view of ignoring humanity’s best attempt to eliminate wars of aggression. I stand with the letter and spirit of the UN Charter; my understanding is conservative text-book info repeated in every text I’ve ever read in 25 years. The difference between reality and the UN Charter is arguments like the “leadership” of the Reps, Dems, and yours. That’s right; the US hasn’t been challenged at the UN. Yet. Thanks for the advice on how I should invest my time and money.
I’m saying the laws of war are clear and being violated. Those in service in our military who agree should honor their oath to defend the US Constitution and refuse all orders related to unlawful war. The Law of Armed Conflict all men and women in the military are trained to understand demands this refusal. The training includes admonishment that there are consequences in making this call; both in disobeying a lawful order and in obeying an unlawful order.
Spoken like a true chickenhawk, Herman - one who never served under the Uniform Code of Military Justice or took an oath of office.
If you knew anything at all about the UCMJ, you'd know you don't have a leg to stand on: Unless and until some recognized legal authority declares the military deployment ITSELF to be illegal or unconstitutional, refusing to deploy is refusing a lawful order.
And more than eight years into OEF, no court case has even come close. Hell, you'd have better luck trying the birther nonsense that Obama is not Commander-in-Chief.
As for the laws of war, you have yet to show any evidence that they were violated or are being violated by taking military action in Afghanistan - just YOUR interpretation, unsupported by legal decisions. (Have there been some specific violations by specific actions by some individuals? Certainly; there are successful prosecutions proving that.)
Jake:
A chickenhawk supports war and doesn’t serve. Teachers and state employees in California take an oath to defend the Constitution. Lt. Watada refused deployment in Iraq because the war is unlawful. The government dropped the case; according to his attorney to avoid evidence defending this conclusion to be heard.
The Founding Fathers had no “leg to stand on” either, in your view. I stand with millions of Americans and probably billions around the world that these wars are unlawful and should be refused and prosecuted as Wars of Aggression, Jake. Wake up and smell the fascism.
For an analogy, I recommend the 2008 film of officers fighting to end Hitler’s wars of aggression, also posed as “defensive” against Poland and to “save Europe” from Bolshevik terrorists and the Allies’ imperialism: Valkyrie.
Rather than buying an attorney's spin, I'd recommend reading the actual decisions in the Watada case.
The Founding Fathers were in open revolt against a government, knew it and accepted the consequences of losing; but that had to do with the illegitimate actions of that government.
There's no exception under the UCMJ for disobeying on order already termed lawful by judicial decision - and deployment to both Afghanistan and Iraq falls in that category. You can challenge the legality in court but you cannot refuse the order without facing UCMJ action.
"millions of Americans"???? Your math is as weak as your legal reasoning. Where are the protest marches? Where is the civil disobedience? Hell, WHERE WERE THE VOTERS LAST YEAR?????
You want to push your interpretation of the UN Charter to deny going after terrorists, be prepared for the outcome: Given the choice, Americans will dump the UN first.
BTW, chickenhawk is any non-server who claims to know the military.
"...President Gerald Ford issued an executive order banning assassinations. Although there have been exceptions to this policy, every succeeding president until George W. Bush reaffirmed that order."
Another example of either sloppy scholarship or deliberate disinformation.
Ford's E.O prohibited "POLITICAL (emphasis added) assasination," which has been consistently interpreted as prohibiting assassination of heads of state and related political leaders or other public figures for political purposes. It was reaffrimed by Carter and Reagan, who was the last president to address the issue in an E.O. ("Assassination" is never defined.)
A 1998 interpretation during the Clinton administration clarified (with no new E.O. but an intelligence 'finding') that actions against terrorists specifically did not fall under the prohibition.
G.W. Bush's finding after 9/11 echoed Clinton's, with more specific direction to use 'lethal force.'
Cont: Under the Constitution, judicial decisions evolve as our sense of justice evolves. That is, anyone is welcome to request reinterpretation of what is and is not considered applicable under the law. The protests before the war were the largest ever, Jake. Current European polls show about 10% support for the US led wars. American opposition is at all-time highs. Corporate media won’t highlight this.
Given the choice, Americans will choose cooperation under law, justice, dignity, and freedom.
Look up “chickenhawk” and its compound parts of chicken and hawk; I’ve never heard your meaning of the word anywhere, anytime.
Yeah, and Jake you go ahead and keep arguing for assassinations rather than the US Constitution’s fundamental principles. Good luck with that future.
Jake:
Yeah, illegitimate government actions are what we’re talking about. Current US wars are as illegal as a first baseman grabbing a base runner and dragging him to the pitcher to be tagged out. I’m open to learning about UCMJ: what’s the UCMJ citation explaining “orders already termed lawful” and what’s the relevant decision? If it’s Watada, the court provided no way for him to exercise refusal of unlawful orders. If that’s your case law, then you’re arguing for no recourse for soldiers to follow the Nuremberg Principles and the Law of Armed Conflict. That reasoning only allows American soldiers to “just follow orders.” More…
Hmmm... where exactly did I argue FOR assassinations? I simply pointed out that. like so much of what you write, you misrepresented the facts.
"The protests before the war were the largest ever..."
Say WHAT?????? You live in some alternate reality or something?
The whole freaking WORLD -including much of the Muslim world - backed our going after bin Laden and al Qaeda after 9/11.
As for the UCMJ, you may not realize it, but there have been cases decided before Watada, and some of them are even considered precedent.
Start with the Manual for Courts-Martial, which defines "lawful order" as: "...one that is given by an appropriate authority, does not violate constitutional rights, and relates to military duty. Military duty includes all activities related to mission, morale, discipline, usefulness, and good order."
Sounds like an order to deploy is lawful, don't it?
Jack/Jake:
Yeah, you argue for murder; just call someone a “terrorist” rather than “political.” What’s wrong with justice under the law, whoever you are?
Look up protests against the Iraq war; sorry for the confusion. And look at opinion polls today for Afghanistan. We had the world's sympathy, yes. And then we retaliated with an armed attack rather than employ justice under the law.
“Does not violate constitutional rights” includes treaty rights to be free from unlawful armed attack outside of Article 51 and/or UN Security Council authorization. That is arguably the most important right covered.
I will point out that MY argument has been about Afghanistan,not Iraq - so your "confusion" appears to be another deliberate attempt to misrepresent facts.
As is your comment about international opinions about Afghanistan - the disagreements that do exist are based on the fact that after eight years, we've failed to significantly improve the situation for the average Afghan, thanks to the lack of attention given by the bush administration.
But in 2001-2002, international support FOR MILITARY OPERATIONS was extensive; there wasn't any need to bribe a 'coalition of the (paid) willing' to get international support in Afghanistan.
You can misrepresent the reality as 'invasion' but it doesn't change the fact there was NO legitimate, recognized government controlling Afghanistan.
Jack/Jake:
I'm satisfied with my argument. I think readers of these comments have more than enough to do their own research and come to their own conclusions about the laws of war, what current US wars are about, and how they should respond.
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!