US military legal argument for current wars: ‘Self-defense’ is whatever we say

“The basis for the United States’ use of force… is, therefore, the Article 51 right of individual or collective self-defense.”Operational Law Handbook 2012, Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center & School, page 6.

The US Army’s official law handbook provides an excellent historical and legal summary of when wars are lawful self-defense and unlawful War of Aggression in a seven-page Chapter One.

Importantly, after accurately defining “self-defense” in war, the JAG authors/attorneys explicitly state on page 6 that war is illegal unless a nation is under attack from another nation’s government, or can provide evidence of imminent threat of such attack:

“Anticipatory self-defense, whether labeled anticipatory or preemptive, must be distinguished from preventive self-defense. Preventive self-defense—employed to counter non-imminent threats—is illegal under international law.”

As many in alternative media have reported for years, the US was not attacked on 9/11 by another nation’s government, and the US explicitly stated they had no evidence of any imminent threat of attack. Indeed, all “reasons” for US wars are now known to be lies known to false as they were told, and disclosed by official US government agencies’ official documents.

However, despite the US Army’s law handbook’s accurate disclosure of the legal meaning of “self-defense” in war, they then ignore this meaning to claim “self-defense” as a lawful reason for US wars!

The evidence the JAG attorneys cite on page 6 is United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1368. The handbook reads:

“This resolution explicitly recognized the United States’ inherent right of individual or collective self-defense pursuant to Article 51 of the UN Charter against the terrorist actors who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks.”

UNSCR 1368 and 1373, both from September, 2001, only call for international cooperation through lawful means for bringing the 9/11 criminals to justice, and remind in the very first sentence of the lawful limits of force within the UN Charter. These two documents will take about 5 minutes to read.

Importantly, JAG’s official US military legal handbook also omits the active treaty (page 466 “Renunciation of War”) of the Kellogg-Briand Pact, that states:

ARTICLE I

The High Contracting Parties solemly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another.

ARTICLE II

The High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.”

Under Article Six of the US Constitution, a treaty is our “supreme Law of the Land;” meaning that no order can compromise a US active treaty.

Therefore, the US military’s legal handbook provides the evidence that current US wars are illegal Wars of Aggression because they are so-called “preventative self-defense”: wars of choice without attack by another nation or any imminent threat.

Their defense of listing a UNSCR that in no way authorizes use of force and merely reminds the public of the existence of the UN Charter limits to prevent use of force, then claiming “self-defense” against the meaning of the UN Charter and legal definition of “self-defense” they admit they accept, seems to mean that JAG claims “self-defense” can mean whatever they say it means when they say it.

This “legal claim” to say/dictate/dictatorship “self-defense” when the facts are not even close to the meaning of the word is the opposite of US government letter and intent of limited government under the US Constitution.

The JAG handbook also lists UNSCRs after the US armed attacks, invasion, and occupation of Afghanistan as evidence that US war on that area was somehow lawful despite no legal justification or UN authorization before US armed attacks.

This is similar to another city attacking your city, claiming “self-defense” because they say you have a “terrorist” in your city, despite your city’s offer to arrest anyone of any crime upon receiving evidence of guilt. The other city refuses to provide evidence, and attacks you (full analogies here, here, here).

US current wars are not even close to lawful.

They can be resolved with arrests of complicit US political, military, and corporate media “leaders” who lied/lie for these wars that kill millions, harm billions, and loot trillions of Americans’ tax dollars (resolution details here).

The fact that developed nations’ political and media “leadership” are complicit to allow this fundamental perversion of law is also a necessary broad-context issue to resolve through arrests, and begs the question: who/what is coordinating this Orwellian and psychopathic lust for wars?

Americans would never allow a favorite sport to be destroyed under such Orwellian lies of the laws/rules. We can stop unlawful wars by being responsible to know and defend war law as passionately as we know and defend our favorite sports, as many of us with Oaths to the US Constitution are honor-bound to do:

There are no lawful orders for unlawful wars.

Americans and global citizens have an opening now to have the intellectual integrity and moral courage to defend the sacrifices of all our families through two world wars:

War/armed attack is illegal except under a narrow and precise definition of self-defense that US wars are not even close to meeting.

Think, speak, and act for Truth in this, and all areas your heart and mind call to you.


This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Riaz Tayob

    According to Gore Vidal most American operations in other parts of the world have not been approved by Congress… he details over 200, but the MSM like NYT would not publish it. Humanism/humanitarianism was the soft glove over the imperial fist for us colonised (the great unwashed); so law and guidelines serve the same function for Americans nationally.
    Trouble I have is after watching US news (ie psychology, not political reporting) i can understand why most Americans bear little or no responsibility for what the WHouse does – they do not know what is happening.
    One can talk about NSA and surveilance etc… the basic point is that a market orientated free press does not serve its political function… it is politics without the political.
    BTW WBlog is one of those sites that helps us non-USers (subject to NSA abuse adn talked about like we do not exist) be more level headed.
    Keep it up, and please more on USA in Africa!

    • Carl_Herman

      Thanks, Riaz :)

  • Dee

    Carl. again I must disagree .. on two specific point , probably others as well, but two main points you make.
    First , The US, nor other world powers and nations,

    • not authorized

      The UN Charter is Clear. It over-rides the war machine.

      • Carl_Herman

        Absolutely, yes. All of our families sacrificed through two world wars for this legal victory to make armed attacks unlawful unless under a narrow and specific definition of “self-defense.”

        • Dee

          then why doesn’t the UN stop the wars, or sanction us, or something? Why doesn’t the IJC rule against us?

          • Carl_Herman

            A nation would have to directly confront the US. John Perkins’ bestseller, “Economic Hitman” documents what happens to those nations, among many authors. Here’s a 2-minute video of Perkins’ explanation: http://www.examiner.com/article/2-minute-video-best-selling-chief-economist-explains-criminal-us-foreign-policy

            You fail to appreciate the distinction between an unlawful act and having the power to enforce the law. When the system is corrupt, you won’t have enforcement no matter what the law says.

          • Dee

            Yeah, if the system is corrupt, it is pretty close to insane to try and call on that system’s laws as a basis of declaring war Illegal.
            You think Perkin’s discovered the obvious?, well that’s nice.
            There are higher moral codes than the UN that you can appeal to .. but they don’t do legality.. they do morality and humanity and the whole good and evil thing.
            There are no laws that can restrain us, or anybody else .. we can restrain and hopefully deter others, and if that doesn’t work rock their world.
            Doesn’t make it right doesn’t make it moral for either side.. Folks always want to chose based on the lesser of two evils… taking sides in wars, voting for presidents , making public policy , choosing between too much sugar or too much fat in some food.. the lesser of two evils ..
            Is it any surprise we have become the lesser evil to the world? But damnit.. we are legal.

          • Carl_Herman

            Dee: do you also advocate that we forget about the US Constitution because the government is corrupt, and as you state, “it is pretty close to insane to try and call on that system’s laws”?

            Or do you stand with those of us who use the Constitution to remind people of unalienable rights that are being violated in Orwellian fashion, and therefore triggers all of us with Oaths to defend those rights?

            Regarding your question, again, refer to JAG’s handbook’s Chapter One.

          • Dee

            Again I have to reject your basic premise.. We are the Government the People.. I stand by the Constitution, and we have effective legal means , if we cared to use them , the ballot, the courts, the impeachment process, recalls, to remove and sanction folks who won’t keep their oath. every one of us is responsible for the situation, for the wars, folks cheered when Afghanistan and Iraq started, NOW had a feminist position paper on the need for action to free the Afghani Women.. Public support comes and goes on everything.. people want credit and they don’t seem to care about the interest rate until the can pay.. heck folks don’t even ask the price any more, just the monthly payment, people wanted security wanted the Patriot Act.. you guys blame the 1% like they are supposed to be stricter parents or something. .. it’s not your fault your a victim .. the government isn’t your fault they have a conspiracy..

            Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves…
            Folks will get ticked off enough sooner or later.. IMHO sooner if we make a good case for human dignity rather than human victimhood, sooner if we empower people with their power to change things , later if we tell them they are oppressed , sooner, with the whole truth, including the fact they’re oppressing themselves pretty much just by how they live.. later, if we create scapegoats and hysterical hyperbole.
            You can’t do this on outrage and emotion .. public is too mercurial .. about the time you get enough folks convinced of you point of view .. some atrocity will happen , another 9/11 something and everybody will be screaming for war.
            Got to be done on principle and it has to be doable.. you problem is the only way we have to stop war and enforce and ban on war or any form of “illegal” ( I prefer the term “unauthorized” ) aggression is war itself. Right now we don’t have a peaceful way to stop war, short of one person at a time.

          • Carl_Herman

            Fair enough, Dee; best wishes with all good-faith efforts.

          • not authorized

            You answered your own question. I was waiting for it. We the People ARE the Government. The reason the UN has no power “here”, is you, me and everyone else who does not “live” by the following:

            Treaties are the second law of the land. It is your right, as a person of the United States, to force your Government to honor treaties, via Article 6, United
            States Constitution. Again, a treaty, and forcing your government to honor them, is your RIGHT UNDER CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

            In the UN Charter, Chapter II, Article 5, it states that any member of the UN, which is against the preventive or enforcement actions of the Security Council, can have all rights and privileges of and in the UN suspended. Recall, the whole purpose of the Security Council is non-violent conflict resolution, and peace (preamble). The authors of this treaty made NO exceptions of breach of peace, for so-called “permanent members”, or specifically for the United States.

            Chapter VII, Article 39, clarifies violations as a threat to peace. In Chapter VII, Article 53, the UN has the right to force us to comply. And that permanent member status we enjoy? Can the UN get together, and remove the United States as a permanent member, by holding their own version of a “Con-Con”, effectively running a sharpie over that stipulation? Yep. That is within their power too. Think 2/3 of the world will vote for that, as soon as we start drone bombing our own citizens for wanting to resume our discussion on Human Rights?

            Do you know what that would mean for our economy and our standing in the world, if we were shunned from the UN? You may ignore the UN, Europe certainly does not. World War 1 and 2, was fought there. They know how bad war really can get. They had to rebuild their entire civilization, almost from scratch. And that, too, was a banker war, when you look at history.

            I am not sure where American’s got the idea that International law does not apply to us. It does. And it is why our own Military had to point out its own argument against any objections of it’s actions that could constitute an Article 51 breech. If it is in violation of Article 51, it is in violation of treaty. If it’s in violation of treaty, you can be damned sure it is in violation of it’s own charter.

            We are 300 million, vs how many? Europe CAN reject us. Today, we offer the world nothing but war, destruction, lies, perjury and deceit to them. They will, and are, going to reject us unless we change our ways. Europe is rejecting us already. We just got banned us from participation in the International Space Station as well, without one protest. It will only go downhill from here.

            How long is the world going to put up with our blatant war mongering? Europe has realized, like we have, that most United States “reasons” behind its wars, was all a lie to keep a select few people, who do not have your interest at heart, in power. Overtime, that group has extended that its tentacles further, and deeper, developing into obvious war crimes and crimes against humanity.

            It was done by convincing the people to allow unaccountable continuation of the world war two war machine. Today, and the problems we face, is why Eisenhower warned us of the Military Industrial Complex. He was contemporary with the signing of the UN Charter. Go read what he said about the MIC.

            The UN Does have power. France, is already calling for the ICC to see
            what happened in Syria. That was just 2 days ago. If you read the Rome Statue on International Criminal Court, Section 2, and understand the law as it is written, the hairs on the back of your neck should be standing up. See, ChapterXIV Article 92-96, means we are an ipso facto party to the Statue of the ICC.

            In English, that means the United States, is not only a part of the ICC, but trials must take place using the United States Legal System, if the Security Council demands it. We also MUST ratify it; it is a requirement per treaty obligation. The second it is ratified, War Crime Trials using the United States legal system must proceed, if demanded by UN, under treaty.

            Now, what other nations have we been aggressors towards?

            Understanding the law, and recognizing the fiction of law being (ie, the legal system today), is *ALL* you need to do. Our predecessors did everything they could within their power, to fix the war and plutocrat problem. For the United States, they even rebound the US Constitution to the People via UN Charter and Article 6, US Constitution. How? By ChapterXVI Article 102 and ChapterXIX Article 110-111, and thus, the UN Declaration of Human Rights applies to you, TODAY. If you understand that, then Article 6, 7, 8 of said declaration gives you a legally binding standing in front of a court again, per treaty, to petition for a redress of grievances. Even as the same “court”, tells you that you do not.

            See, the legal order in our land is: US Constitution -> Treaties -> Legislation -> Act of 1871 -> Subsequent “legislation” passed by “Washington DC” -> “Federal” Court. One part of that chain is “NULL AND VOID” per case law. Can you research which one it is?

            Please, read the UN Charter, and the United States Constitution Article 6, and DEMAND, OUR Government, follow the law, not the fiction of law it has conjured up.

            You will change the world, and our future.

          • Kansas Bright

            Most of us want us out of the UN.

          • Carl_Herman

            I think we should take war law and use it to show US War Criminals, not abandon this helpful law. It’s only area of authority is to stop Wars of Aggression; all other areas are advice that nations are free to consider and reject.

          • not authorized

            99.9 have never read it’s Charter, nor know anything in detail about its human rights mission. Read that, and the UN Declaration of Human Rights. All of the rights you think you enjoy today, are actually fully protected by the UN. Their mission is to end war, and promote liberty. You have hundreds of enumerated human rights, all documented online. The United States was mandated to incorporate them into our nation.

            Like I said, that charter re-applied the US Constitution to you. Take a day to learn the proper order of law. Treaty, overrides the Act of 1871, and subsequent fiction of law.

            The reason you are being indoctrinated to leave the UN, is because the war machine would stop, almost overnight.

            That doesn’t mean ending our military either. UN Charter is our way to return the military to the law, away from oligarchs and mission creep. Imagine, What could the Army Corp our engineers do, with the current war budget, if they were given a large portion of it, and were told to solve world hunger? I bet they could make hydroponic warehouse farms, fully feeding every man woman and child on earth. Probably by the end of the year.

            Want me to believe our military is all about aid, like the boxes say in pro military commercials?

            Prove it.

          • Carl_Herman

            Wow! You’ve got game :)

          • not authorized

            Carl, thank you so much for your kind reply. You too, have your own game. I look forward to reading your essays and articles.

            Keep researching my friend, the keys to the kingdom are all there. See, the “police” admit, they do not know all the laws. I took that as they do not know the many laws that exist to have them charged and arrested for violation of Civil Rights under color of law. (Title 18 USC 241-242, Title 42 USC 1983, 1985-1986.).

            How?

            Title 18 U.S.C3332

            “…Any such attorney receiving information concerning such an alleged offense from any other person shall, if requested by such other person, inform the grand jury of such alleged offense, the identity of such person, and such attorneys action or recommendation.”

            All we need to do is request a US Attorney to bring any civil rights infractions to the Grand Jury.

            If you request an Attorney to notify the grand jury of alleged offenses, they must notify the grand jury to begin a presentment hearing. In fact, this is our right. If they refuse, then, if the alleged offense was legitimate, the attorney that refused, now becomes an accessory after the fact, per Title 18 USC 3332 Title 18 <4 Title 18 Guilty, until proven Innocent. Ie, power to issue presentments via Grand jury for ANYTHING AGAINST GOVERNMENT for ANY REASON.
            People -> Innocent, until proven Guilty. All crimes require a victim, and the State, cannot be a party.

            Per the William’s case:
            ‘Rooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history,’ Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 490 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result), the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the four branches described in the first three Articles. It “is a constitutional fixture in its own right.” United States v. Chanen, 549 F. 2d 1306, 1312 (CA9 1977)quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S. App. D.C. 58,70, n. 54 (1973), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 (1977). In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people.’

            Read read read! :) So much more where that came from!

          • Bob F

            Where’s your evidence that people wanted security in the aftermath of 9/11 in the form of the Patriot Act. Congress just did what it always does seek ever more power.

          • Dee

            Bob, you must have forgotten the mood of the times.. let me remind you

            http://www.stanford.edu/group/journal/cgi-bin/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Damania_SocSci_2011.pdf

            There is plenty more out articles out there that reflect the times.. if you have any doubt. Amazed you could have forgotten that, or I don’t know, maybe you are too young to really remember.

            Bush’s popularity was over 90%, 98 Senators voted for the Patriot act..

            I felt very alone .. when they hijacked and declared 9/11 as Patriots Day and everybody cheered, because I knew Patriots Day was April 19th the Anniversary of Lexington and Concord. ( Third Monday in April now officially, I hate that too) and we didn’t know what all was in the Act , but some of the hints and leaks were very un-American and very scary.

            Even a couple years later http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/shapiro/2003-08-19-hype_x.htm

            But by 2006 it was still but just barely popular http://www.gallup.com/poll/5263/civil-liberties.aspx and now 16 years after the fact it isn’t so much…

          • Carl_Herman

            Dee: reality is that the public are lied to and do not have opportunity to consider the objective facts. Whenever you consider public opinion and what “people want,” that is key to recognize: public opinion is manipulated.

            What’s needed, among many areas, is alternative media and patriots such as our readers to accurately provide the public with good-faith efforts of the facts.

          • Dee

            Uh, The public is lied to.. I get that part, but how are the lies reality? Wouldn’t the truth be reality? I think this is where we differ, you are saying the lies and the lying is the reality. I am saying the reality is what it is at any given moment. And sometimes that means war is popular, and sometimes it isn’t. 9/11 really happened, that really pissed folks off.. everybody really rallied together .. Bush and war was really popular, so was the Patriot Act.

            Folks were singing along to song like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruNrdmjcNTc
            Really

          • Bob F

            Then we by and large are cowards so full of fear after 9/11 that we got exactly what we deserve with this NSA spy on everything, American citizens can become enemy combatants.

            Thank you for sharing those articles, I have lost all faith in the human race, we deserve the brutality that we ask for.

          • Kansas Bright

            The US Constitution assigned Oaths to those who were to “support and defend” or “preserve, protect, and defend” her and our nation but that never happened. But it also put a back-up in case all of that failed:

            The Preamble to the US Constitution; starts with: “We the People of the United States do ordain and establish this Constitution”

            By those words it is saying that “We the People” are the source of any and all legal status of the state and federal governments.
            “We” created them for specific purposes, and it was NOT to destroy our lives, control us, spy on us, track us, or murder us. Basically all public officials – state and federal representatives, state and federal law enforcement, military, state and federal judges, the multitude of state and federal bureaucracies – are called “public servants” for a reason – they are literally our hirelings, and many are “temporary/”seasonal” workers”.

            The US Constitution and all that is “in Pursuance thereof” it, as the supreme (highest) law of this land in the areas where it has jurisdiction says that “We” (as the Militia of the several states) are personally responsible for maintaining and protecting the US Constitution, each state’s Constitution, and seeing to their enforcement against ALL foes – domestic and foreign. “We” are the ones responsible for enforcing the laws of this land, and are charged with it’s defense plus the defense of our homes, neighborhoods, cities, counties, states, and country.

            It says it here within the Constitution of the United States of America: US
            Constitution, Article I, Section. 8, Clause 11:
            “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water”.

            The congress has the duty to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal when they are needed to enforce the US Constitution, the laws, or defend the people and the nation. This is using private citizens in their own privately owned crafts to
            defend the USA and her people, this is using the Militia.

            Clause 15: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel invasions.

            This clause is very straightforward. The militia of each state is taxed with the defense of the USA and her people, not just with the defense of their state; and they are to be armed with weapons that can repel any invasions bearing modern weapons of war. Congress is required to provide those military grade weapons for the militias.

            Clause 16: “To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of
            the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”.

            Thomas Jefferson, 1st inaugural, explained that: “a well-disciplined militia” is “our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them” and also a guarantee of “the supremacy of the civil over the military authority; [and] economy in the public expense.”

            When the founders created the US Constitution they realized that we would
            never be able to count on state and federal representatives or agencies to protect our lives, property, and freedom. They decided to continue with what the people here had already been using, and the one proven throughout history to have the best needs of the people themselves always put first, the Militia of the several states. Who are the Militia? All able-bodied citizens
            or those legally allowed to be here between the ages of 18 – 60.

            Each state’s Militia is made up of “We the People” protecting our own interests, homes, states, nation, and enforcing our governments. The Militia has as its constitutionally assigned duties to:
            - Enforce the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution,
            - Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which is constitutional laws ONLY),
            - Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
            - “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.

            The US Constitution guarantees to each state its own “Republican form of government”. It is every state’s Militia that is the ONLY Constitutionally assigned force to “counter Invasions” and “Domestic Violence” within our nation.

            The forefathers wouldn’t put the militia under federal control as there was always a chance that those in office would turn traitorous against the people. They already had learned, and history taught – then and now, that people in places of power could not be trusted. So they broke it up; the people ARE the militia and would keep the best interests of the people themselves at the forefront of all decisions made. Then they assigned the duty of organizing,
            arming, and disciplining each state’s militia to the federal congress; and to each state the appointment of their Militia’s officers and their training; all under
            Article I, Section. 8, Clause 16.

            ONLY the congress can lawfully declare war under the contract they get
            their duties and powers from.

            War must be declared by congress in order to be a lawful war that our US
            military are used to fight in, it must be in defense of our nation ONLY. That is why so many lies were used as excuses to get us into wars. Since they were not, and are not, lawfully declared wars, ALL who died on all sides make that mass murder, etc that those who serve within our government had a hand in and MUST be fully prosecuted for.

            War cannot lawfully be “declared” against a tactic such as the “war against terror” or the “war against drugs”; both are not wars and not even the congress can declare a war against a tactic. War defined is: ‘Open and declared conflict between the armed forces of two or more states or nations’

          • Kansas Bright

            What makes you believe the UN is against war? it isn’t. Saying that it was created for peace was a lie.

            Are you even aware of who was involved in creating the UN and what the first order of business was for them?

            Who:
            Edward Stettinius Jr. – of a J.P. Morgan partner who had been the world’s largest munitions dealer in the First World War. He had been named by J.P. Morgan to oversee all purchases of munitions by both France and England in the United States throughout the war.

            John Foster Dulles – an accomplished warmonger. In 1933, he and his brother Allen had rushed to Cologne to meet with Adolf Hitler and guarantee to him
            the funds to maintain the Nazi regime. The Dulles brothers were representing their clients, Kuhn Loeb Co. and the Rothschilds.

            Alger Hiss – high up in the communist elite in the united States. Hiss was later sent to prison for perjury for lying about his exploits as a Soviet espionage agent.

            The first UN military strategy session was dedicated to its mission of exploding the world’s first atomic weapon on a living population, Japan.

            It was to use the bombs on Japan. Japan had already surrendered, it was not accepted because they need to try out those bombs.

            That is the UN, which was formed to create a One world government, which is why we had more death of citizens by their governments in the last century then ever before and the UN did nothing to stop them, nor are they doing anything today because that is NOT it’s purpose.

          • Carl_Herman

            Agreed. And that said, we have an art and science to bring justice and facts to light: the letter of the UN Charter (which only has legal authority to end the scourge of war; advisory in all other areas) along with intent and will of ~95% of the people give all of us with Oaths an opening to reject these lie-started Wars of Aggression on the basis that US wars are not even close to the definition of “self-defense.”

            And yes, the “developed” nations all are complicit to allow these Wars of Aggression to escalate since WW2. They definitely have a purpose at the UN for some other outcome than peace.

      • Dee

        What is clear is the actual deployment of troops under UNSCR’s or in support of them and Neither the UN or any of the Treaty Organizations saying they are illegal, but rather supporting them.
        The UN knows what is and isn’t legal under the UN charter, and they have forces in a bunch of places and call on the US and NATO to help frequently. You don’t see the UNSC saying any of this is Illegal, Where is any ruling from the IJC in the Hague that says any of this is illegal? … doesn’t that give you just a small clue that you guys are misreading things in a major way.?

      • Dee

        Then why doesn’t the UN stop the wars?

        • Kansas Bright

          Because it is not supposed to stop the wars, it is supposed to assist in bringing about a one world government. Did anyone bother to read any of the UN’s purpose besides how it is presented to the masses? Anyone notice what has been done to stop democide within other nations?

    • Carl_Herman

      Dee:
      You propagandize for war and outright lie about the crystal-clear limits that make armed attacks unlawful. You argue that if someone calls/dictates another, “Terrorist,” then that person can be attacked, such as the US does to God knows how many countries since WW2.

      Interested readers: read the seven pages of Chapter One from JAG’s law handbook above for a clear explanation of what is and is not lawful war. Then, contrast that conservatively accepted definition with the facts of US armed attacks around the world. Then, come to your own conclusions.

      I offer war law is as easy to understand as when a baseball runner is either safe or out at first base. Dee makes the law complex so that whatever the US does is lawful. Laws/rules are meant to be clear to everyone; and war law is absolutely clear as the article explains, documents, and proves.

      The meaning of war law is not an opinion, but crystal-clear to prevent exactly the type of armed attacks the US viciously makes, and then Orwellian-cries, “Self-defense” as millions are killed and brutalized in foreign lands.

      Dee: I doubt I will have any response to you worth my time other than this one. I also point-out to interested readers that despite the US long history of lie-began wars, you seem to accept the US dictatorship of who is a “terrorist.” That’s a curious placement of your trust, Dee, for someone claiming to work for peace.

      • Dee

        Carl , you know very well I consider war immoral evil and inhumane. The issue here is illegal, and it really is quite simple.. None of the Organizations that are responsible for enforcement of the treaties or the Legal arms responsible for saying what is or isn’t legal have complained. We, and other countries go to war based on the UNSCR’s and the UN nor the UNSC nor the IJC seem to ever rule that it is illegal … how do you account for that. Don’t you think they might know what their own Charter says and means? UN has 175 members dozens of Committees and Councils and a General Assembly. I have no problem finding UNSCR’s and even proclamations from the General Assembly condemning terrorism and rogue states .. can’t find any condemning the US and other Countries for fighting them …can you?
        JAG handbooks says our wars are legal ?
        Why is that complicated? just because you can’t make reality fit into you theory or explain why The UN doesn’t complain or the IJC doesn’t rule that what you think is illegal is illegal, but rather they keep on doing it and condemning the terrorist and rogue states for not complying with the UN charter and they keep piling on sanctions and condemning their human rights violations and war crimes of the terrorist and rogue states and keep cheering us on doesn’t mean my explanations are complicated .. it just means you guys are so far off base that the world itself and the UN Charter and all the other treaties doesn’t behave the way you think it should and they way you read the applicable Conventions and Treaty’s .. has the possibility that you might be wrong ever crossed your mind?
        You can’t find any UNSCR’s that say we are the bad guys, that we are wrong, you can’t find any International Court ruling on Afghanistan or Iraq or any of the current wars that say what we are doing is illegal .
        So all you have is your personal opinion that the US , the UN and The International Court of Justice in the Hague are wrong and are conducting or supporting or turning a blind eye to illegal wars. And you can see no possibility you might be wrong?

      • Dee

        It is not a matter of trust. I don’t trust any of them, I think it is all a big scam and they deliberately wrote all those conventions and charters and treaties so they can do exactly what they are doing. And I don’t have to trust anybody to know when a terrorist is a terrorist , beheading prisoners, taking hostages and kidnapping kids to sell into slavery, strapping bombs on and going out for pizza instead of calling for home delivery are dead giveaways .

        • Kansas Bright

          Our government IS the US Constitution. It matters not what those in positions of power write or say, if it is NOT in Pursuance thereof the US Constitution they are criminals. They broke their contract, and personal guarantee – the oath – that they would support the US Constitution, support and defend it when they are working to destroy it.

          That is called treason.

          • Dee

            Kansas, going to do an answer to several of you posts all on this one post.. because IMHO the general answer is applicable to most your points. I think everybody is looking at the wrong piece of paper ..everybody is all about the Constitution.. I’m more about the Declaration of Independence.. it is the where the Great Idea’s are.. It was a Document that led to Great Change, along with the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers , Common Sense, The Christmas Message at Valley Forge.. those were the Documents of Change. The Constitution is a collection of the Rights, our Founding Fathers choose to give up to empower and form the Government. A Government that all the Founding Fathers took pains to hobble even in the exercise of the authority we granted it over certain Rights of the People.. taxes, the power to call a Levy for war, just the fundamental power of Government, the power to make laws binding on the People.. and yeah, these a basically necessary for a government to govern, but you mention Eisenhower and the MIC, might I remind you the Founding Fathers warned much more forcibly that the People needed to stay vigilant, because it is the nature of government and man to overreach when exercising power.

            And Look.. you think officials aren’t keeping their Oath, and I think they hired a million Lawyers to find the legal loopholes so whatever they say or do, usually the technically aren’t breaking their Oath.

            The Constitution is the consequence of the Revolution, it isn’t a document of change.. you want change, you got to look to the Documents that Sparked Change and then you can look at the Articles of Fereration, that was the First attempt that was , I am going to say , for the purposes of this discussion, and because I can’t find a better word , The First attempt was poisoned by there still being a little to much of the Revolutionary Dream and distrust of Government was still high, so the didn’t hand over enough of their Rights to have a government that would work .. The US Constitution made sure the US Government had the power it needed, to do what needed to be done.

            If we want change.. we got to look at the documents and voices that created change in the first place.

            And if it is” war” we want to change, then we need to find and circulate Documents that can empower the people.. songs too ..

            Here are some examples

            http://www.plough.com/en/articles/2011/july/blessing-the-bombs

            songs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG48Ftsr3OI

            We are still trying to find the Great Ideas.. The UN Charter and all the rest are like the democracies of Athens and Rome.. need a little work.. We need Peace to be a principle, not just an emotional want between our bouts of wanting war. Jefferson had the Idea, and a lot of folks before him.. but Jefferson crystalized it with some help from Paine and Franklin and others.

            I think we still haven’t found the equivalent words to put the thoughts into a concrete form to make the Change.

            Just as our Rights are so innate and precious that we do not trust them to Governments, and say they come from the Creator alone… How might we value Peace? You want Governments in charge of that or having a veto? Well that is what you are asking for the minute you invoke “legality” and Government words and documents. I welcoming any help and every little advance that might come from that approach, but realistically, leaving war and it control in the hands of humans has a track record of having inhumane results. Even the Bible invokes God and Peace and love your neighbors and can you even count the wars from that?

            It’s going to take a revolution of the human mind and soul. We quibble over this war or that is it right is it wrong, or as you guys say legal or illegal. Meanwhile, back at the silo, we maintain the ability to destroy the world and render the glowing ember incapable of maintaining orbit around the sun. Might check the law books on that one.. and you know, the surprising thing about that is we are pretty good at keeping things at the negotiation level with nukes… we got to get there with war as well .. I don’t think the legality matters, so far what works is the realization of the consequences.. and that there is no winning. I think people still see war as a way to win or protect things they value, value so much , at least for the moment and within a delusion that they are willing to die or give their soul up for. We got to give the people a better way to protect what they value, to replace war. When push comes to shove even the dreamers fix bayonets.

            “Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.”
            ― H.L. Mencken, Prejudices: First Series

          • Kansas Bright

            “The Constitution is a collection of the Rights, our Founding Fathers choose to give up to empower and form the Government”

            Actually they listed EXACTLY what the federal government is allowed, and not allowed to do. Yes both documents (Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution) are supposed to be taken together.

            ” … you think officials aren’t keeping their Oath, and I think they hired a million Lawyers to find the legal loopholes so whatever they say or do, usually the technically aren’t breaking their Oath.”

            You’re incorrect. When the Oath says to support and defend the US Constitution – there is no way around that. ["Support; to maintain; to provide for; to enable to continue; to carry on". "Defend: to ward off attack from; guard against assault or injury; support, argue for, champion, espouse, guard, justify, maintain".] It does NOT say support and defend it if you feel like it.

            Alexander Hamilton: “Every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the
            tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No
            legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

            What are the defining characteristics of our limited government? They are what it does not have the legal authority, what those serving within it are forbidden to do.

            Take the First Amendment… What does it do? It guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion. How does it guarantee that? By forbidding the legislative branch – the ONLY one allowed to make legislation/laws/bills, etc from destroying, modifying, etc it with the words: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press…”.

            “Congress SHALL MAKE NO LAW;” forbids them from any power over that/those natural right(s), it is a statement of an absence of power. That’s a statement of what they are NOT allowed to do. That means there IS NO legal way around it.

            Not only are they breaking their oath, which is a felony, civil, and political crime; but they make themselves no longer meet the conditions of the contract they not only agreed to, but took a solemn legally binding personal guarantee (the OATH) that they would follow the US Constitution as required.

            You seem to think that the US Constitution – the SUPREME LAW of this land , can be gotten around by lawyers, attorneys. ALL laws MUST be in Pursuance thereof it to be lawful (legal) here in the USA. It cannot be changed because an attorney/lawyer, a president, the congress, or a supreme court or lower court judge wants to change it – that is called “usurpation” (The unlawful assumption or seizure of sovereign power, in derogation of the constitution and rights of the proper ruler “We the people”; The tyrannical assumption of the government by force contrary to and in violation of the constitution of the country.)

            You probably also fell for them saying they can use “emergency powers” to stop the legitimate government – the US Constitution – and go against our natural rights. There’s no “emergency powers” given within the US Constitution to any or all of the branches of the federal government; or any powers that are not defined and remedies allowed put forth. The US Constitution was created in a time of emergencies, so that was not overlooked. “Emergency Powers” is the exact opposite of the US Constitution and is a LIE. There is no time ever that they can suspend any of our natural rights, the US Constitution, or the Bill of Rights – not lawfully.

            Anything done in the name of “emergency powers” is criminal in action. Worse, those unlawful enforcement actions makes those who enforce them criminals though they might have done this misdeed with no knowledge that they were committing criminal acts because they do not understand our way of government – as you seem not to.

            The UN was created by Communists, Nazi’s and Nazi supporters. What makes you think it is an organization for anything except to create a one world government and to destroy our sovereignty? Look it up.

            As Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr said; “Americans would have had to understand and enforce their Constitution. You notice I say Americans, not the Congress or the Supreme Court, because who is the final arbiter of this document? [holding a copy of the Constitution] It is not Congress, and it is not the Supreme Court. It is “we the people.” Read the thing. How does it start? “We the people do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States”; not “we the politicians,” not “we the judges.” Those people are the agents of the people. We the people are the principals.

            The doctrine is very clear that, being the principals, we are the Constitution’s ultimate interpreters and enforcers. You don’t have to take my word for it. Let’s go back to the Founding Fathers…

            The Founding Fathers were profound students of law and political philosophy, their knowledge unequaled by any today. Their mentor in that era was William Blackstone, who wrote Blackstone’s Commentaries, probably the most widely read legal treatise of its time, certainly here in the United States. What did Blackstone write about this subject? He wrote, “Whenever a
            question arises between the society at large and any magistrate vested with powers originally delegated by that society, it must be decided by the voice of the society itself; there is not upon earth any other tribunal to resort to.”
            (End quote by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr.)

            Thomas Jefferson: “…To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps… The Constitution has erected no such tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruption of time and party, its members would become despots….”

            Thomas Jefferson: “The government created by this compact (the Constitution) was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party (the people of each state) has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”

            John Marshall: Opinion as Chief Justice in Marbury vs. Madison, 1802: “The
            particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are BOUND by that instrument.” (caps are mine)

            James Madison, the Father of the US Constitution: “The ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms.”

            I think that you do not understand that the people who serve in the various positions do not have more power then the US Constitution assigns to the position. I think you believe it is the people serving that have the power. They do not, they are there to carry out the duties of the position they occupy that was assigned by the US Constitution. This may help you understand, the caps are mine:

            J.Reuben Clark: “God provided that in this land of liberty, OUR POLITICAL ALLEGIANCE SHALL NOT RUN TO INDIVIDUALS, that is, TO GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, no matter how great or how small they may be. Under His plan our allegiance and THE ONLY ALLEGIANCE WE OWE AS CITIZENS OR DENIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, RUNS TO OUR INSPIRED CONSTITUTION which God himself set up. SO TUNS THE OATH OF OFFICE OF THOSE WHO PARTICIPATE IN GOVERNMENT. A certain loyalty we do owe to the office which a man holds, but even here we owe just by reason of our citizenship, no loyalty to the man himself. In other countries it is to the individual that allegiance runs. THIS PRINCIPLE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE CONSTITUTION IS BASIC TO OUR FREEDOM. It is one of the great principles that distinguishes this “land of liberty” from other countries”.

            Lawyers, nor judges of whatever rank, congress, senate, presidents cannot change the meaning of the US Constitution – they were not given that authority or power.

            Mack and Printz v. United States (Opinion) stated, “The Framers rejected the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States, and instead designed a system in which the State and Federal Governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people.

          • Dee

            Well, not exactly.. I wish everything was so simple. Fortunately we have the Supreme Court to sort out what things mean. And I much as I would like to say Rights are absolute, I have to admit that I understand that often two fundamental rights can conflict between two patriotic citizens and you sometimes need a court to sort out the best way for everybody to enjoy as much of any fundamental right as possible while allowing others to do the same. Some would say we have a fundamental right to life, other would say the death penalty is Constitutional , how can that be.. lots of court decisions , right up to the Supreme court. The poor old Constitution gets twisted one way then the other to infringe on the right of association when serving the public and yet let the Boys Scouts to discriminate.. every conflict of rights needs to get sorted. And according to the 5th amendment, if you use due process , you can take any of them. A lot depends on how you see something, .. take the draft for example.. is it your right to serve? your obligation to serve, or is it the government’s right to levy you for mutual defense. Who gets to say, to define, what our national interests are, and who gets to balance which national interests have priority or get to be the driving principle of policy, perhaps this time but not next time?
            We are a Republic, government is limited and so is the direct participation of the citizens .. makes it more practical for everybody to have the right to an opinion , a conscience , and free speech, basically because nobody really has the power to impose their reading of things on others..
            You go back and look at and maybe read that paper I posted about the Law of war and partisans .. dozens of SCOTUS cases and rulings sorting out the fine points of the simple words of the Constitution and treaty that you see as so straight forward and so easy to interpret that, as they say, “even a cavemen could do it”
            Your way would work if we just had the Cheshire Cat writing decisions, but then we would truly be thru the looking glass.

      • Kansas Bright

        War here in the USA is NOT allowed unless in defense of our country which is why all the lying about needing to stop other nations who will use weapons of mass destruction against us, etc to get us into illegal, undeclared wars.

        Plus it makes a reason for the unlawful fourth branch – the Pentagon.

    • Kansas Bright

      “You don’t get to pick and choose which treaties and conventions apply .. The UN does and International Law does”

      No the US Constitution does here in the USA, we are a sovereign nation with our own laws, not part of a global conglomerate illegally following their laws.

      “That is the international law.”

      Our US Constitution laws apply here in America, not those of a foreign entity or foreign nation(s).

      We are not under a world government, we are still a sovereign nation. ALL treaties MUST be in Pursuance of the US Constitution to be lawful here. It is only those laws that follow (are in Pursuance thereof) the US Constitution that are legitimate here whatever the globalists are trying to shove down our throats.

      “… 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.

      The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…”

      Article VI says that only the laws that are made in Pursuance thereof the US Constitution are lawful here in the USA. Anything else disguised as “law” is not legal or binding on US Citizens.

      It also says that anyone serving within the federal or state governments MUST support the US Constitution or no longer meet the qualifications of the position or office they are occupying when it says this about qualifying for office or public trust:

      “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the
      several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the
      United States.”

      ALL justices – federal and state – MUST support the US Constitution and follow it or they no longer meet the contract, bound and verified by taking the Oath of Office, and would no longer lawfully be occupying the position they are serving in.

      Our US Constitution laws apply here, not those of a foreign entity or foreign nation. Yes I do support our legitimate government, and I do it openly.”

      US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: “The Congress shall have Power To… provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States…”
      Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
      Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
      Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

      Defense of the USA and her people is the ONLY time the US Military can be used except against “Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations” per Clause 10: “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high
      Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations”; and to do so lawfully (legally) War MUST be declared by the congress, or we must have been attacked by a nation or state on US soil (when the president can call on the Militia of the several states while the US Military is being assembled).

      • Carl_Herman

        Well said; thank you, Kansas Bright.

 

 

Twitter