We hold these Truths to be self-evident...
The laws of war are essential for citizens and legislators to master if humanity is to evolve beyond our violent history of war to enjoy civil communities. To bring these basic laws to life, we’ll touch on war’s history, explain the letter of US war laws, explain the philosophy/spirit of US war laws, and make the obvious conclusion once the laws are clearly understood that current US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are unlawful orders that our military must refuse and stop as demanded in their oath to the protect and defend the US Constitution.
My paper that provides supporting expert testimony that current US wars are unlawful, and context that unlawful war, rigged-casino economics, and corporate media propaganda to obfuscate these facts from the public are part of an oligarchy dominating US policy is, "Open proposal to US higher education."
"Naturally the common people don’t want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. … Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." — General Hermann Goering, President of German Reichstag and Nazi Party, Commander of Luftwaffe during World War II, April 18, 1946. (This quote is said to have been made during the Nuremburg Trials, but in fact, while during the time of the trials, was made in private to an Allied intelligence officer, later published in the book, Nuremburg Diary.)
History: we were born into a century of two world wars and a total death toll from governmental violence of over 230 million human beings. Government wars and destructive policy of are almost always accompanied by propaganda (and here).
Propaganda, in this case, is whatever message will attract public opinion to support government policy of war and destruction. Princeton philosophy professor Harry Frankfurt wrote his 2005 Bestseller on this type of communication, prevalent in government: On Bullshi_. For my purpose in making the case that current US wars are unlawful, I just want to establish that governments employ BS to sell their wars.
Because of the magnitude of carnage and misery, the major nations of the world relinquished the option of war in their foreign policy by ratifying the United Nations (UN) Charter as a treaty in their individual countries. If political “leaders” and/or the public were sufficiently strong in their understanding of law, propaganda/government BS would have no power. This leads to our next point.
Letter of the UN Charter: The UN Charter is a Treaty in Force; an active US treaty. Article VI of the US Constitution declares treaties as having equal power with Constitutional law and laws from Congress. This is also known as the Supremacy Clause:
“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.”
Therefore what the US president and 2/3 of the Senate have agreed to in a treaty is the law of the US until such time as the US rescinds that treaty obligation. The UN Charter is therefore the law of the US with its clear restrictions of using war as a foreign policy option.
It's also helpful to understand what the UN is not. The only area of legal authority of the UN is security/use of force; all other areas are advise for individual nation's legislature's consideration. The UN is not global government. It is a global agreement to end wars of choice outside of a very narrow legal definition of national self-defense against another nation's armed attack.
The preamble of the United Nations includes to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war… to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and… to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used…”
The UN purpose includes: "To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace..."
Article 2:
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter…
Article 24: In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.
Article 25: The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.
1. The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
2. The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.
Article 37: Should the parties to a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 fail to settle it by the means indicated in that Article, they shall refer it to the Security Council.
Article 39: The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Article 40: In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable.
Article 51: Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the judicial branch of the UN. Their definition of “armed attack” is by a nation’s government. Because the leadership of the CIA and FBI both reported that they had no evidence that the Afghan government had any role in the 9/11 terrorism, the US is unable to claim Article 51 protection for military action in Afghanistan. The legal classification of what happened on 9/11 is an act of terrorism, a criminal act, not an armed attack by another nation's government.
The US is able to defend itself from any criminal act, of course, including an imminent threat, and does so daily, including using international cooperation to discover facts for the arrest and prosecution of the accused. The US use of force oversees could be a legal application of Article 51 if, and only if, the US could meet the burden of proof of an imminent threat that was not being responded to by the Security Council. To date, the US has not made such an argument.
American Daniel Webster helped create the legal definition of national self-defense in the Caroline Affair as "necessity of that self-defence is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." The US attack on Afghanistan came nearly a month after the 9/11 terrorism. Article 51 only allows self-defense until the Security Council takes action; which they did in two Resolutions beginning the day after 9/11 (1368 and 1373) claiming jurisdiction in the matter.
In conclusion, unless a nation can justify its military use as self-defense from armed attack from a nation’s government that is "instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation," all other acts of war are unlawful. The legal definition of “self-defense” ends when the attack terminates. In general legal definition, no party is allowed use of force under the justification of “self-defense” if the law can be applied for redress and remedy.
We’ll consider the US government’s argument that current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are legal in the analysis section.
Letter of the US 1973 War Powers Act (WPA): The authorization by Congress for US presidential discretion for military action in Afghanistan and Iraq references WPA. This act, in response to the Vietnam War, reframes the Founders’ intent of keeping the power of war in the hands of Congress. It also expressly limits the president to act within US treaty obligations; the principle treaty of use of war being the UN Charter.
This means that presidential authority as commander-in-chief must always remain within the limitations of the UN Charter to be lawful orders. It's not enough for Congress to authorize use of force; that force must always and only be within the narrow legal definition of self-defense clearly explained in the UN Charter and bitterly learned by our own families through the sacrifice, terror, and misery of WW2.
Philosophy/Spirit of US laws of war: After WW2, humanity spoke and legislated that all wars not in self-defense of an attack upon the nation are unlawful. The world’s citizens and leaders demanded peace.
We can anticipate that if a government wanted to engage in unlawful war today, they would construct their propaganda to sell the war as “defensive.” The future of humanity to be safe from the scourge of war is therefore dependent upon their collective ability to discern lawful defensive wars from unlawful Wars of Aggression covered in BS claims of defense.
An analogy of BS legal cover is the White House “legal” memos attempting to explain obvious torture as legal. When an authority in an expensive suit with a team of lawyers says something vicious is both legal and moral, you should also recognize that is the obvious strategy for a political faction to execute an unlawful war.
Unlawful war analysis: Governments have been vicious killers over the last 100 years, using BS to justify their wars. The UN Charter’s meaning to make war an unlawful act is abundantly clear in its detailed explanations. The US attack of Afghanistan on October 7, 2001 was a deliberate act of unlawful war, not defense that was "instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." The burden of proof the US would have to provide is imminent threat of another attack in order to justify self-defense. US Ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, in his letter to the UN Security Council invoking Article 51 for the attack upon Afghanistan mentions only “ongoing threat;” which does not satisfy this burden of proof.
Article 51 requires self-defensive war coming from an attack by a nation’s government, which the CIA and FBI refute in the case of the Afghan government with the terrorism on 9/11. Self-defense ends when the attack ends. The US war began four weeks after 9/11 ended; making the US war one of choice and not defense. Article 51 ends self-defense claims when the UN Security Council acts. Resolution 1373 provides clear language of international cooperation and justice under the law, with no authorization of force. This evidence doesn’t require the light of the UN Charter’s spirit of its laws, but I’ll add it: humanity rejected war as a policy option and requires nations to cooperate for justice under that law. The US has instead embraced and still embraces war with its outcomes of death, misery, poverty, and fear expressly against the wishes of humanity and the majority of Americans. These acts are clearly unlawful and should be refused and stopped by all men and women in military, government and law enforcement.
The Iraq war in 2003 includes these reasons and expands them with all claims made for war being known as false at the time they were told to the American people and our troops. Your examination of the disclosed evidence will prove that we were lied to as the evidence is obviously and criminally misrepresented. This link provides a summary explanation with further links of complete documentation.
Some war liars argue that UN Security Council Resolution 687 from 1991 authorizes resumption of force from the previous Gulf War. This resolution declared a formal cease-fire; which means exactly what it says: stop the use of force. The resolution was declared by UNSC and held in their jurisdiction; that is, no individual nation has authority to supersede UNSC’s power to continue or change the status of the cease-fire (further explanation here). The idea that the US and/or UK can authorize use of force under a UNSC cease-fire is as criminal as your neighbor shooting one of your family members and claiming that because police have authority to shoot dangerous people he can do it.
Perhaps this analogy will help in one paragraph of allegorical history, one paragraph of allegorical legal history, and one paragraph of legal analysis:
Tony and his Uncle Sam had a Machiavellian history of 40 years with Saddam; a history that included mutually-agreed political assassinations and business transactions worth billions in profits. Sam supplied material assistance to Saddam in attacking his neighbor, Mahmoud, from 1980-1988 after Mahmoud refused further dictatorship from Sam over billions in product profits. Sam and Tony had previously unlawfully taken over Mahoud’s business from 1953-1979. After further complex history between Sam and Saddam, Saddam began selling his product for currencies other than exclusively for Sam’s currency.
In response, Tony and Sam claimed Saddam has deadly weapons with the intent to use them. Saddam had a previous conviction and was forbidden to possess such weapons, but had refused to be searched after Sam made public statements that “someone” should assassinate Saddam. When Sam and Tony threatened to attack Saddam because of his alleged weapons and refusal to be legally searched, Saddam agreed to be searched. While the police were searching Saddam, with no weapons found and when the search was almost complete, Tony and Sam shoot and kill Saddam.
Tony and Sam claim legal self-defense. They claim that the law allows the police to shoot dangerous people with weapons. They say because they had “credible intelligence” Saddam had weapons he was certain to use, Tony and Sam are justified in killing Saddam and “making the world a safer place.” The facts that Saddam was being searched by the police, that the police have the authority to do the shooting and not Tony and Sam (unless they are under reasonable imminent threat of Saddam shooting, which both agree was not the case) is immaterial. Tony says Saddam was a psychopath and a monster. Sam says people like Saddam hate Tony and Sam “for our freedoms.”
Looking further, Sam and then Tony threaten to attack Mahmoud because they claim he has secret deadly weapons with the intent to use them. The police regularly search Mahmoud and have never found evidence of any weapon. Tony and Sam also say Mahmoud threatens to destroy his friend, Benjamin, to “wipe him off the map.” The source of the accusation is a speech Mahmoud made about Benjamin’s abuses of his neighbor, with the transcript proving Mahmoud made no threat, that Sam apparently is again looking for unlawful control over Mahmoud’s business, and that Tony and Sam are obviously lying. Despite the facts, Tony and Sam continue their allegations that Mahmoud is dangerous, saying “the clock is ticking,” and the time for talk is coming to an end.
Further unlawful war analysis: The UN Charter is the principle law to end wars; designed by the US to produce that result. That said, West Point Grads Against the War have further legal arguments of all the violations of war from US attack and invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, including further analysis of the UN Charter and expert supporting testimony of what I assert are "emperor has no clothes" obvious facts that these wars are not even close to lawful.
Lawful war analysis: Negroponte’s letter invokes a legal Charter Article of self-defense in contrast with the loss of over 3,000 lives on 9/11. The letter portends legal evidence of al-Qaeda’s “central role” in the attacks and claims military response is appropriate because of al-Qaeda’s ongoing threat and continued training of terrorists. This reasoning argues for a reinterpretation of self-defense to include pre-emptive attack while lying in omission that such an argument is tacit agreement of current action being outside the law.
Conclusion and policy request: As President Obama aggresses for further war in Iran, Americans must quickly choose sides: support the US Constitution and our legal commitment to end wars of choice, or be satisfied with whatever BS our war leaders throw at you to allow government mass murder to continue.
Choose well; you may have to live in the world of your choice.
I request all men and women in our military, in government, and in law enforcement to embrace the facts of US unlawful war and all related orders. As such, our oath to defend and protect the United States Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, must be honored and applied to refuse and stop all orders related to the engagement of unlawful wars.
The criminal acts of policy design and execution must be investigated and prosecuted as per law enforcement oath to protect and defend US law. In history, the US led the prosecution of Nazis for lying to their people that WW2 was a “defensive” war to cover their fully-planned War of Aggression. The US prosecution was titled, “Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression.”
In our world of the present we must stop and prosecute, “US Conspiracy and Aggression.”
My recommendation of policy response, given the breadth and depth of US political complicity in Crimes Against Peace and War Crimes, and the obvious resistance of political “leadership” to prosecute themselves is to create a Truth and Reconciliation (T&R) process. T&R would exchange entire testimony of criminal and harmful acts (and perhaps cooperation to remedy damages in constructive ways) and return of stolen US assets for no prosecution. Whatever is not disclosed in testimony, including covering-up crimes of others as accomplices after-the-fact, will be prosecuted.
Below is an 8-minute video from Puppetgov titled, “How you ended the war.”
As always, please share this article with all who can benefit. If you appreciate my work, please subscribe by clicking under the article title (it’s free). Please use my archive of work to help your self-expression in building a brighter future.
Comments
I believe that wars continue to occur because a bankster can always profit from them, and continue to print and loan fiat money. In addition, there is usually some valuable resource which is being stolen under guise of "police action", "install democracy" etc. Like Patton and Admiral Fallon, some military men wake up, others like Eisehower are insiders, and others retire still fully indoctrinated.
Not a Lawyer or a historian are you? To say you don't know what you are talking about is a massive understatement. Sadly I do not have the time to even start in on this.
Happy D: I teach law and history. But let’s run with your argument: if you’re not an umpire then you can’t understand the basic rules of baseball? If you’re not a mechanic, it’s impossible for you to work on your own car???
If you're not a woman yourself, it's impossible to understand them? Oh, ok, maybe that one's valid :)
I know you don’t work in science or engineering, because data stands or falls on its own merits. I know you don’t honor our judicial system, because in criminal trials it’s the jury who determines the facts of a case.
What you do honor, Happy D, is propaganda. Happily, I have the two minutes to point this out.
Cont: I’m willing to view you as a misguided patriot, wow. As I said previously, your strong feelings for our country are clear, and your comments are helpful to those wanting to understand the strongest counter-arguments to my legal argument. This argument ignores the Constitution, US law, lies in omission by failing to define “self-defense,” and helps make my point that these wars are unconstitutional and unlawful. You stand with unconstitutional and unlawful support of war, wow; and state it unapologetically. Men and women in military, government, and law enforcement should understand, reflect and then actively refuse and stop all unlawful orders pertaining to these wars.
Do you have a lawful argument, wow, or are unlawful ones the best you’ve got?
Cont: You are absolutely wrong about using a resolution for getting Saddam out of Kuwait over ten years earlier justifying “self-defense” in 2003. You represent sick and twisted rhetoric looking for any BS that might stick to justify your blood lust, wow. And you seem to find this funny.
I’d like to expose your ignorance to a wider audience, wow. I’ve invited you to post on my article fully exploring the clear meaning of war laws (despite your whining that someone’s dictatorship/dictating that law don’t matter) and will copy your revealing comment with explanation to: “US war laws explained, why Afghanistan and Iraq wars are unlawful, how to end them.” I do so because I hope this more complete explanation will become the central article for comprehensive legal explanation of US war laws. More…
Wow:
Your first move is to break the Constitution; the very definition of being American, by denying an act of Congress that has not been found unconstitutional in federal court. You show absolute ignorance: federal courts rule on constitutional challenges; until such time an act of Congress is found unconstitutional it has the force of law.
Authorization of force for Afghanistan and Iraq specifically cite WPA. WPA (a common acronym for this, if you didn’t know) expressly states treaty limitation for use of force. The UN Charter limits war to self-defense only. But you evade again, wow: DEFINE “SELF-DEFENSE” AS A LEGAL TERM APPLIED TO A NATION. And also define “armed attack” in Article 51 of the UN Charter. You ignore what these rules mean, wow. That’s exactly how these wars are foisted upon our troops, nation, and world. More…
wow - Well, you know someone is holding a losing hand when they attempt to invoke the War Powers Resolution, especially when they don't even get its title correct. Let me know when you find a President who accepts THAT as Constitutional - or the Supreme Court rules that it is. Regardless, the two AUMF resolutions cover the legalities from the US legal end - and remain in effect to this day. As for the UN and "self-defense," that only applies to Afghanistan - where the people who planned and financed the 9/11 attacks were based and protected by the illegitimate Taliban government. there's plenty of precedent in international law for that being self-defense - although I believe you will find the UN never even brought up that particular issue. Iraq, as you know, was justified based on UN resolutions dating back to 1990. I'll freely admit it was slippery legal ground - but let me know when someone actually manages to get a legal challenge to it off the ground, will ya?
The following is an exchange I thought would be useful to repost here. It’s from the article, “Afghanistan war surge: Non-defensive wars are unlawful orders US military must refuse and stop” Posted/Updated: 12/09/2009 06:28 AM
I invite readers’ strongest legal challenge to the argument I present and additional arguments that support the US wars’ unlawful status.
Who gives the UN authority, and who enforces The UNs will ? From your comments; ".. what we already agreed was prudent restraint of unlawful wars of choice.". I assume you mean by "we already agreed", the 1940s UN meetings and the member nations in attendence. But all law is open to interpretation and revision. Thus the definition of defensive versus offensive that you give is open to interpreting in light of new forms of warfare, which the late 20th and early 21st are showing to be quite different than WWII. The issues of WND are also complicated. The yellow cake was a scam. But the gas used on the Kurds was not...because we sold it to them and knew at least the US input. Further, If there is unparalelled evidence of an 'unlawful war' as you claim given the UN's 1940s definition and charter----why no large public outcry from the UN ? Remember the UN signed on. If they were defrauded why haven't they made an issue of it? Could it be they were part of the deception from the begining?
I pasted waTcher's comment below from an economics article:
Did you read the paper where I walk people through the law or not?
Hmmm?
The UN/US war laws are to end Wars of Aggression. Yellow cake and ALL STATED OTHER CLAIMS were lies. The US has/had no case for lawful war. This is as clear as a baseball pitch ten feet over the batter’s head being nowhere close to a strike (to hit and run with your umpire term).
And yes, anyone arguing such a pitch is a strike is in criminal conspiracy. Res ipas loquitur.
The globally organized criminals, the Kingdom of Satan, will use any and all conceivable deceit, treachery, murder, war, manipulation, technology, corruption, abortion, lie, extortion, etc. to enrich themselves and enslave and destroy others. Their goal is world ownership and domination. They are highly skilled in evil and deception. I am thankful for the truth coming forth. Pray for the "Law of the Harvest", the "reap as you sow" law, the "return of Karma" law to act speedily, to speed up, accelerate, the return of evil karma back upon all those who have sent it out to harm others. Divine Justice will triumph!
That's a nice concept...let some divine force sort it all out. I won't argue that that possibly happens in the afterlife, but that doesn't happen in the this world. Its change in this world we should be advocating for while we are here. Don't you see its faith that allowed these evils to exist in the first place? People wanted to believe so badly that our Government was looking out for our best interests that they allowed the laws/constitution that govern us be changed into the twisted unrecognizable greed monster they are today. This was done purposefully by men that knew the masses were dumb enough to belive that anyhting the Government allowed was "right". What makes up the government? People. What are poeple? Greedy. How do you change things in our country? Pay the greedy people in the government to advocate for whatever change you wish to see. How do you stop a monster greed Gov't that rapes its own citizens with wanton disregard? You kill it. You kill every last part of it...literally. I know I may have lost you there, but they have laws protecting thier laws which rape the common man. You can't beat them by following the law. Killing in self-defense is just. Killing for the defense of others (your fellow citizens) is noble and righteous.
Mr. Walters: 5% of "leadership" are the psychopathic criminals who use our "faith" in them to lie and commit massive crimes. Because 95% of us want justice under the law, I suggest we use the law to isolate and end their crimes. Self-defense is narrow under the law; your comment seems in need of greater specificity of who you're saying to "kill" and what self-defense is in your understanding.
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!