What we know for sure about Ukraine; what Americans must demand

*hat tip: Washington’s Blog*

What we know for sure about the situation in Ukraine is exactly what we know about Syria, Iran, and previously in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan:

  1. The same “leaders” in US government and corporate media giving information about Ukraine lied to us about other wars. For one example, official US documentation proves that all of the reasons for war on Iraq and Afghanistan were known to be false as they were told.
  2. Current US wars are not even close to being lawful. Two US treaties require that military armed attack is only lawful when another nation’s government attacks your nation first (or is an imminent threat).
  3. The US has a history of lying to begin unlawful Wars of Aggression. In fact, this is business as usual when the history is comprehensively explained and documented. Please don’t believe anyone on this: you know enough history that a 5-minute examination of the facts in context will demonstrate this is objectively true.

Given what we know for sure, Americans must make one specific demand or be damned for more of the same:

Arrest US leaders in government and media for OBVIOUS current War Crimes.

This is the lawful action to remove criminals from power to do further harm, a basic test if Americans desire and deserve justice, and the only way to open the floodgates for insider whistle-blowers to bring forward the evidence of what is really happening in the Ukraine.

But go ahead and make a counter-argument if you have one: do you see another pathway for justice other than arrests of obvious criminal leaders lying and killing in unlawful wars?

The American public has a HUGE opening to voice their demands during the 2014 Worldwide Wave of Action that begins ~April 4 on the anniversary of Martin King’s assassination by the US government (civil court trial verdict), and completing ~July 4. The purposes of the 2014 Worldwide Wave of Action:


This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Excerpt from

    Are Cops Constitutional?

    Roger Roots JD

    Seton Hall Constitutional L.J. 2001, 685


    For decades before and after the Revolution, the adjudication of criminals in America was governed primarily by the rule of private prosecution: (1) victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury, (2) the grand jury investigated the matter and issued an indictment only if it concluded that a crime should be charged, and (3) the victim himself or his representative (generally an attorney but sometimes a state attorney general) prosecuted the defendant before a petit jury of twelve men.15 Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions — the only material difference being that criminal claims ostensibly involved an interest of the public at large as well as the victim.16 Private prosecutors acted under authority of the people and in the name of the state — but for their own vindication.17 The very term “prosecutor” meant criminal plaintiff and implied a private person.18 A government prosecutor was referred to as an attorney general and was a rare phenomenon in criminal cases at the time of the nation’s founding.19 When a private individual prosecuted an action in the name of the state, the attorney general was required to allow the prosecutor to use his name — even if the attorney general himself did not approve of the action.20

    Private prosecution meant that criminal cases were for the most part limited by the need of crime victims for vindication.21 Crime victims held the keys to a potential defendant’s fate and often negotiated the settlement of criminal cases.22After a case was initiated in the name of the people, however, private prosecutors were prohibited from withdrawing the action pursuant to private agreement with the defendant.23 Court intervention was occasionally required to compel injured crime victims to appear against offenders in court and “not to make bargains to allow [defendants] to escape conviction, if they … repair the injury.”24

    Grand jurors often acted as the detectives of the period. They conducted their investigations in the manner of neighborhood sleuths, dispersing throughout the community to question people about their knowledge of crimes.25 They could act on the testimony of one of their own members, or even on information known to grand jurors before the grand jury convened.26 They might never have contact with a government prosecutor or any other officer of the executive branch.27

    Colonial grand juries also occasionally served an important law enforcement need by account of their sheer numbers. In the early 1700s, grand jurors were sometimes called upon to make arrests in cases where suspects were armed and in large numbers.28 A lone sheriff or deputy had reason to fear even approaching a large group “without danger of his life or having his bones broken.”29 When a sheriff was unable to execute a warrant or perform an execution, he could call upon a posse of citizens to assist him.30 The availability of the posse comitatus meant that a sheriffs resources were essentially unlimited.31

    15 Originally, all criminal procedure fell under the rule of private vengeance. A victim or aggrieved party made a direct appeal to county authorities to force a defendant to face him.

    See ARTHUR TRAIN, THE PRISONER AT THE BAR 120 n. (1926). From these very early times, “grand” or “accusing” juries were formed to examine the accusations of private individuals. Id. at 121 n. Although the accusing jury frequently acted as a trial jury as well, it eventually evolved into a separate body that took on the role of accuser on behalf of aggrieved parties. It deliberated secretly, acting on its members’ own personal information and upon the application of injured parties. Id. at 124 n.

    16 In the early decades of American criminal justice, criminal cases were hardly different from civil actions, and could easily be confused for one another if “the public not being joined in it.” Clark v. Turner, 1 Root 200 (Conn. 1790) (holding action for assault and battery was no more than a civil case because the public was not joined). It was apparently not unusual for trial judges themselves to be confused about whether a case was criminal or civil, and to make judicial errors regarding procedural differences between the two types of cases. See Meacham v. Austin, 5 Day 233 (Conn. 1811) (upholding lower court’s dismissal of criminal verdict because the case’s process had been consistent with civil procedure rather than criminal procedure).

    17 See Respublica v. Griffiths, 2 Dall. 112 (Pa. 1790) (involving action by private individual seeking public sanction for his prosecution).

    18 See, e.g., Smith v. State, 7 Tenn. 43 (1846) (using the term prosecutor to describe a private person); Plumer v. Smith, 5 N.H. 553 (1832) (same); Commonwealth v. Harkness, 4 Binn. 193 (Pa. 1811) (same).

    19 See Harold J. Krent, Executive Control Over Criminal Law Enforcement: Some Lessons From History, 38 AM. U. L. REV. 275, 281-90 (1989) (saying that any claim that criminal law enforcement is a ‘core’ or exclusive executive power is historically inaccurate and therefore the Attorney General need not be vested with authority to oversee or trigger investigations by the independent counsel).

    20 See Respublica v. Griffiths, 2 Dall. 112 (Pa. 1790) (holding the Attorney General must allow his name to be used by the prosecutor).

    21 Private prosecutors generally had to pay the costs of their prosecutions, even though the state also had an interest. See Dickinson v. Potter, 4 Day 340 (Conn. 1810). Government attorneys general took over the prosecutions of only especially worthy cases and pursued such cases at public expense. See Waldron v. Turtle, 4 N.H. 149, 151 (1827) (stating if a prosecution is not adopted and pursued by the attorney general, “it will not be pursued at the public expense, although in the name of the state”).

    22 See State v. Bruce, 24 Me. 71, 73 (1844) (stating a threat by crime victim to prosecute a supposed thief is proper but extortion for pecuniary advantage is criminal).

    23 See Plumer v. Smith, 5 N.H. 553 (1832) (holding promissory note invalid when tendered by a criminal defendant to his private prosecutor in exchange for promise not to prosecute).

    24 Shaw v. Reed, 30 Me. 105, 109 (1849).

    25 See In re April 1956 Term Grand Jury, 239 F.2d 263 (7th Cir. 1956).

    26 See Goodman v. United States, 108 F.2d 516 (9th Cir. 1939).

    27 See Krent, supra note 19, at 293.

    28 C.f. Ellen D. Larned, 1 History of Windham County, Connecticut 272-73 (1874) (recounting attempts by Windham County authorities in 1730 to arrest a large group of rioters who broke open the Hartford Jail and released a prisoner).

    29 Id. at 273.

    30 See Buckminster v. Applebee, 8 N.H. 546 (1837) (stating the sheriff has a duty to raise the posse to aid him when necessary).

    31 See Waterbury v. Lockwood, 4 Day 257, 259-60 (Conn. 1810) (citing English cases).

    • Carl_Herman

      Good. Then the average American family (~100 million US households) have been looted a share of ~$8 trillion on current wars (long-term cost) of $8,000 each, and each has a case of treason against the US government for attacking our own military by lying them into unlawful wars.

  • Charlie Primero

    Per your recommendation, I called the FBI and demanded they arrest U.S. leaders for war crimes.

    They didn’t seem interested.

  • mmckinl

    Putin doesn’t have a choice but to confront Obama… The new Ukrainian defense minister is from the neo-Nazi Svoboda Party and the deputy defense minister is from the neo-Nazi Fatherland Party …

    The head of the Svobada Party says he wants the Ukraine to have nuclear weapons within 6 months … The Ukrainian PM is now saying Russia has violated its lease on it’s naval base and will be evicted …

    • Carl_Herman

      Awesome. Then it’s really important for Americans to arrest Obama for Wars of Aggression to stop another one, and to investigate the role of his groups in possible orchestration of aggression.

      • Charlie Primero

        Per your recommendation, I called the FBI and demanded they arrest Obama for war crimes.

        They didn’t seem interested.

        • Carl_Herman

          Yeah, but you really didn’t call, Charlie, did you?

          If anyone’s interested, get a name and an official statement; I’ll verify and write it as an article.

      • dale ruff

        Well, let’s start with the most evil war criminals, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld…..Obama’s sins, tho real, are minor compared to those.

  • dan

    Obama,Putin are ‘buds’ working for the same masters….doing the ying and yang polka…as has been done in the past history of our war against Russia our ‘enemy’…….right…..ps..gutting the military and starting another ‘engagement’….WTF…eyes wide open on this one, also notice all the neo’s on foxcnn calling for ‘engagement….as the ‘spending cap ‘ has been eliminated….How much $$$ will the state dept and the IMF promise to Ukraine…do you not see the same ‘game plan’ as in our past history of bringing this nation to its knees…while we are tasked with trying to feed own country’s citizens….$$$ is no object when it is given to others in the world…same old game plan…different day….imho

  • Hu-dat SuckerFor’lush

    So all military personnel were/ are breaking their oaths to protect and defend the US CONstitution, effectively making what Kissinger said about them true. There’s no excuse for ignorance of that simple requirement to be attacked first or imminently, and obviously no excuse to say you were “just following orders”. You could say you didn’t personally know the threat wasn’t imminent, but then Kissinger’s take applies. And you SHOULD know. It’s your duty…

    • Carl_Herman

      Yes, they are breaking their Oaths. And, they are not trained to tell the difference between lawful and unlawful war, only a list of war crimes once war begins.

      And yes, we could use all US military to act now to refuse all orders for unlawful war, and arrest those who issue them.

  • 2 great articles on this subject:

    Exclusive: A shadow foreign policy apparatus built by Ronald Reagan for the Cold War survives to this day as a slush fund that keeps American neocons well fed and still destabilizes target nations, now including Ukraine, creating a crisis that undercuts President Obama, reports Robert Parry.

    By Robert Parry

    The National Endowment for Democracy, a central part of Ronald Reagan’s propaganda war against the Soviet Union three decades ago, has evolved into a $100 million U.S. government-financed slush fund that generally supports a neocon agenda often at cross-purposes with the Obama administration’s foreign policy.

    NED is one reason why there is so much confusion about the administration’s policies toward attempted ousters of democratically elected leaders in Ukraine and Venezuela. Some of the non-government organizations (or NGOs) supporting these rebellions trace back to NED and its U.S. government money, even as Secretary of State John Kerry and other senior officials insist the U.S. is not behind these insurrections.


    Dance to my strategy, suckers

    Where’s H L Mencken when we need him? No one ever lost money underestimating the mendacity of the Pentagon/NATO/CIA/State Department system. Especially now, when Ukrainian policy seems to have been subcontracted by the Obama administration to the likes of neo-con Victoria “F**k the EU” Nuland, married to Dubya darling neo-con Robert Kagan.

    As Immanuel Wallerstein has already observed, [2] Nuland, Kagan and the neo-con gang are as much terrified of Russia “dominating” Ukraine as of a slowly emerging, and eventually quite possible, geopolitical alliance between Germany (with France as a junior partner) and Russia. That would mean the heart of the European Union forging a counter-power to the dwindling, increasingly wobbly American power.