You’d never allow a favorite sport destroyed by psychopathic ‘officials;’ why allow the US destroyed?

If a favorite sport was rigged so “officials,” game announcer, and reporting media allowed massive destruction of the rules that effectively devolved the game into a tragic-comic joke, you would be livid, speak-up, and take some kind of action.

You can’t imagine this would ever occur because so many Americans are well-educated in “sports law,” are highly passionate in their love of their games, and quick to self-express when the sport suffers from an obviously bad/missed call by officials.

For examples, Americans would speak, act, and end the following egregious sports violations of law if they occurred:

  • Baseball umpires and media allow the New York Yankees’ pitchers to throw pitches so far out of the strike zone that their catchers have to stand-up and move away from the plate to catch them, AND call those pitches strikes. Instant replay and multiple-camera technology confirm these pitches are out of the strike zone by as much as ten feet, yet umpires and media ongoingly claim these pitches are lawful strikes and umpires’ calls are final. Corporate media focus on Yankee history of winning, how the players are really good guys, and charities the players and their wives support, but never on the hard evidence of where these pitches are actually located.
  • Football officials and media allow the San Francisco 49ers defense to tackle the opposing offense center before the snap, steal the ball, and call this a recovered fumble for the 49ers. This happens whenever the 49ers want to do it (average five times per game), is lauded as their new “Surge defense,” but always ruled as an “offside” violation by 49er opponents when they try it. Corporate media discuss the 49ers new stadium, West Coast innovations applied to football, and again charities the players and wives support, but never on factual analysis of the play in question.
  • Tennis officials and media allow John McEnroe’s 2014 “comeback” (yes, he still plays excellent tennis at age 55) by having balls he hits outside his opponent’s court by as much as ten feet to be called “in.” The distances the ball lands away from the lines are clearly seen by spectators, documented on replays, and shown on the multiple-camera computer programs as so far out to be impossible the calls were innocent mistakes in judgment. Opponents’ balls hit into McEnroe’s court are called “out” when McEnroe falls behind in a game, even if the documented evidence show the ball “in” by several feet. Corporate media focus on McEnroe’s history of winning, his personality, past relationships, musical interests, and being a unique athlete to enjoy, but never the factual analysis of ball location in the matches that allow McEnroe to “win.”

Again, this is impossible to imagine because there is no history of such ridiculous lies close to these three fictional sports examples, and Americans are so powerful in their knowledge of the sports they wouldn’t allow it. Their voices at these sports events would clearly communicate they know damn well those games are rigged, “officials” are intentionally lying, and corporate media is also complicit in the rigged outcomes.

The liars would be clearly seen for what they are, shamed into surrender so Americans could reclaim their beloved sport, and Americans would be rightly proud of their required activism.

This said, Americans do allow their nation to be destroyed by rigged and unlawful Wars of Aggression under our flag and honor, with our tax dollars, and war-murdering millions of people.

America has become a tragic-comic joke (also considered the most dangerous nation to world peace) because our wars are as ridiculous as the above sports examples. Here’s the six-sentence summary; full documentation here and here:

Current US wars, including any attack on Syria, Ukraine, and/or Iran, are Orwellian unlawful because US armed attacks, invasions, and occupations of foreign lands are unlawful Wars of Aggression. Two US treaties, the Kellogg-Briand Pact and UN Charter, make armed attacks on another nation unlawful unless in response to armed attack by that nation’s government. 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.

Current US wars and rhetoric for more wars continue a long history of lie-began US Wars of Aggression since the US invaded Mexico; despite Abraham Lincoln’s powerfully accurate rhetoric of President Polk’s lies to steal half of Mexico at the expense of US military and Mexican civilian lives. The most decorated US Marine general in his day also warned all Americans of this fact of lie-started wars for 1% plunder.

Such lie-began and unlawful US wars have killed ~30 million since WW2, arguably more than Hitler’s Nazis.

Want something better, like the justice of a fair game on a level playing field?

Tired of having your whole nation being a deadly joke?

Then you’d better speak-up and take action. How about this for your talking points:


This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Dee

    A couple of points I think that needs to be made. I think Carl is overstating , and occasionally misleadingly some of the basic facts of the situation.

    Here are the relevant parts of the UN Charter Article 1 the Purpose of the UN and Article 2 The Principles Nowhere does it say war is illegal, it does say Member States shall refrain from Force or the threat of Force but it also says down in Paragraph 7 of Article 2 Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to
    intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of
    any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement
    under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the
    application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

    now Chapter 7 is interesting Articles 39 thru 51 are all about the authorization for the use of force and how member states are supposed to maintain militaries to be used by the UN to enforce Security Council resolutions

    That sure doesn’t sound like War is Illegal or that the use of Force is banned .. and Of course it doesn’t say war is illegal .. it says as a matter of principle these things should go thru the UN Security Council first.. That if somebody is in Violation of that Principle The UN thru the Security Council will take steps , economic, even Military Force, but steps, sanctions, a harshly worded letter, some diplomatic condemnation something.. anything.. Okay so where is any sign of any action, condemnation, diplomatic comments of any kind from the UN Security Council to indicate even the slightest disapproval from the UN for the wars Carl seems to think are illegal or in Violation of the UN Charter

    In fact here is the procedures for Security Council resolutions and all the resolutions

    And here are the UN Security Council Resolutions concerning the Iraq War

    And here is the list for Afghanistan
    According to these Security Council Resolutions the Taliban and similar actors and the violation of human rights, especially the Human rights of women are the big thing.. although there are a couple that speak Directly to the issue of Legality and

    I also have a small quibble with the basic honesty of the article linked to in the above opinion piece by Carl strangely also by Carl that cites this article if you read this article you will see that the only significant factor is almost all the deaths in almost all is any of the wars or conflicts mentioned is US involvement . Just taking a more balanced and more honest look at the actual history and circumstances of Yugoslavia for example you get a much different story and you get some much more significant players with a lot of the responsibility for the deaths and horrors of war like
    Yes the US had influence and was involved on the international level, occasionally the military level often with UN blessing in many important events in the 20th century and probably does deserve part of the blame in more than a few cases .. but you could never tell that from the article Carl cites. I’m not saying anybody has to have a deep and profound understanding of international law or of any of the conflicts listed in the article cited by Carl with all the deaths of the 20 th Century laid solely at the feet of the US.. I am saying even a passing acquaintance with the fact , Wikipedia will do .. almost anything over 10 paragraphs per conflict will do actually, will show that the information supplied by Carl to justify his position is fundamentally dishonest by any measure of History and any concept of the truth that involves the whole truth .. half truths to advance a agenda based on lies about the fundamental justification , the position of the UN is all this does a disservice to both History and the Truth as well as any Honest attempt to stop war and promote Peace.
    What are we to think when you cannot make a case that Peace is better than war without resorting to misrepresentations, half truths, and outright lies?

    • Carl_Herman

      Dee and interested readers: read the UN Charter for yourself and see the treaty that under Article 2 makes the US wars not even close to lawful. Here’s my article with the sections if you don’t want to invest the hour to read it for yourself:

      Here’s the Kellogg-Briand treaty that makes war illegal to use as a policy: This takes about 5 minutes to read.

      Both are active treaties.

      The UN Charter requires a nation to take-on the US/UK wars as an issue, and no nation has yet taken on those empires, so Dee is not truthful in saying what the UN “thinks” about it. Here’s some expert testimony, including the Secretary General of the UN and all 27 UK Foreign Affairs lawyers agreeing the wars are not lawful:

      Think for yourself, folks. War law is meant to be as clear as traffic laws, sports laws, and your household rules for family.

      Don’t believe Dee or me. Look for yourself.

      And while you’re at it: look for yourself at the cost of these wars, going back since after WW2 (Dee miswrites that the research I cite places “all the deaths of the 20th Century laid solely at the feet of the US”) in the link in the article, and further US lies for war here:

      Here’s one more difference between Dee’s position and mine: she claims offense at my work for peace, while I only and always support people in their self-expression. She supports her “offense” on her claimed conclusion my work is inaccurate. Again: think for yourself.

      • Carl_Herman

        And Dee, now that you seem to attack my work, I challenge you to write your best explanation how US wars are lawful, and I’ll contest it (or the other way around). This will be an article I’ll publish, perhaps with the title, “Public response that US wars are lawful rather than unlawful (1 of 3)”

        If you’re interested, we can frame it with your argument, my argument for the first article, then each of us can have a counter-argument with questions for each other, and a third with our responses to each other’s questions. So that’s three articles; it seems you have most of your work already prepared from your comments.

        What do you say?

        • Dee

          I can’t do better than
          I think I will keep all my responses in response format where I can edit them and you can’t. You are not a journalist, and I do not trust you or your ethics as an essayist.

          • Carl_Herman

            I encourage people to read the document you cite that affirms US requirement to not use or threaten force. The exception is self-defense, that requires “necessity” (the US attacked Afghanistan four weeks after 9/11 in violation of this clause), and that anticipatory self-defense only come from exactly what I cite: “leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation” or at least “imminent threat” AND NOT when there is no imminent threat. The US violated that condition, as well as two UN Security Council Resolutions for factual discovery, arrests, and prosecutions of the 9/11 criminals.

            The document lies that UNSCR 1368 does anything other than affirm the limitations it previously described. The unexplained gap between treaty obligations and armed attack, invasion, and occupation of Afghanistan is simply claimed as “self-defense,” just as I document from UN Ambassador Negroponte’s letter to the UN.

            That’s the lie, weakness, and attack point that caused Lt. Watada’s court martial to be declared a mistrial by the military before the Lt. could present their team’s arguments of unlawful US wars.

            The US claims of self-defense to attack all the nations we currently attack is Orwellian – the opposite of what self-defense legally means and opposite of US treaty obligations.

          • Carl_Herman

            You don’t want a public debate, Dee. That’s fine. You don’t trust me; also fine.

            I’ll do my best to present the argument you raise without you.

          • Dee

            No I don’t trust you.. but I didn’t say I wasn’t going to debate.. I said I wasn’t going to participate in a shared article.

            I don’t think you understand what you read or what you are talking about.. that is about as generous as I can be.. the alternative is you are deliberately misrepresenting the issue.

            Let me try again to show you the error you are repeatedly making.

            Lets start with Lt Watada ‘s Courts Martial because the problem is really highlighted in the proceedings
            read the part about the Courts Martial and he was Court Martialed and it ended in a Mistrial .. ( and he wasn’t retried, not because the judge backed down as you said but when Obama was elected and inaugurated and took office so did an new AG and the dropped the retrial. ) But this is the key part as far as what we are discussing.. Watada tried to offer the illegal war/ illegal order defense. The Judge ruled that wasn’t something that the Court could decide. The question then was did he or did he not disobey and miss movement.
            And this is the key thing.. if you cite the UN Charter as your basis .. then you have to live with the UN Charter and it procedures for deciding these things. And that only happens one way.. a UNSCR saying a war or action is in violation of the Charter. The US Government can make it’s argument and case before the UNSC and those who think differently can make their case and have their opinions , even former Secretary Generals like Kofi Annan can state their opinions, different Nations can have different interpretations, But the only one that matters is if the UN Security Council issues a UNSCR saying it is illegal .. and that hasn’t happened. We based our National Official opinion on the existing Charter and the UNSCRs that apply and until the UNSC says different we are right ( or proceed as if we are and are willing to pay the penalty, or at least to acknowledge their ability to say otherwise and for us to be wrong) and we recognize their authority to say we are wrong, but they haven’t.
            You have an opinion, other governments and even groups of lawyers have opinions, I have an opinion some say it is legal and some sat it isn’t and Watada stuck his neck out because he believe what was right for him and was willing to take the consequences if he was wrong.. and I as I read things , the US was also willing to take the consequences from the UN if the UNSC ruled the war illegal or asked the International Court of Justice for a legal opinion.. that is also an option if somebody felt the fact that the US as a Permanent member of the UNSC and had a veto might use it to shut down a ruling of illegal.. I think we had the votes to at least insure that we wouldn’t get an illegal ruling in the Security Council without using a veto , but not enough to get a legal ruling because Russia and China could veto that . But that is the procedure and the system at the UN in accordance with the UN Charter, and yes it is politics as much as law.. but you dance with the one that brought you. And you, and everybody cites the UN Charter both ways and UNSCR’s both way and the UNSC is silent and never sent the question to the IJC, so no ruling of illegal and several UNSCR that can and were read as permitting it. Not something the US Government can decide outside of saying according to domestic law it is legal including the fact we are members of the UN and try to abide by the UN Charter , but that decision is a vote in Congress and a Presidential signature.. more political than legal , but the cases were made for both sides. So by US law and that is what the Military Court has to go by and the official position for the US and it’s forces is all laid out in the JAG Handbook,. the only thing that can overrule that is a UNSCR or a IJC legal opinion.. and those never happened.
            It isn’t up to you or me you invoke the UN Charter, you got to live with the procedures to determine theses thing in accordance with the UN Charter. It is that simple. And for you and me there is no personal cost , we have nothing at risk either way.. we are civilians we have free speech , our only real obligation is to present the facts factually and only then if we value our personal credibility and honor more than our personal agenda. And if this theory doesn’t support our agenda , if the UN Charter including the way that these decisions are made by the UN doesn’t support our agenda we are free to beat another horse until it dies or pulls our wagon.
            And the UN Charter as much as you would like to think it supports your opinion, is Governed by the folks at the Security Council on this point, on this issue, and they have not ruled in your favor in 11 years. the have not sent this issue to the IJC for a legal opinion. Neither has any official body associated with the Kellogg Briand Treaty or any other treaty about the legality of any of the wars we are talking about. .
            Nobody and no organization, that actually has the authority and the power to make the call , has made the call. Anybody that has to put their Oath and Honor on the Line is flying naked and better be doing it for the good of their soul and individual conscience, because the law is not going to be on their side.
            And nations do the same thing, they do what they think is best and right for them, they know not everybody will agree .. they know there could be legal and political consequences , but more importantly they know that their sons and daughters are going to die and they IMHO, more often than not, really try to do what they think is best.. do I agree? , seldom , almost never. And even when it is quick and as clean as war can be , which isn’t very, do I think it is worth it? seldom almost never. Can I see some high moral principle along with the more venial motivations .. usually , sometimes, not so much, and usually whatever “good” comes from war, the unintended consequences afterwards spoil and sour it.
            But none of that is the Question.. and there is only one Answer because their is only one Competent Authority to give the definitive answer , and they have not said it was illegal , nor have they made any moves to do so in 11 years. And they said plenty that could easily be read as authorizing it as legal, that condemned the folks that got attacked for their violation of the Charter and UNSCR’s and not a peep against anybody who acted on those UNSCR’s as the legal basis for war.
            Doesn’t make war moral or humane or anything but evil, hell on earth, and doesn’t interfere with anybody taking any meaningful stand, refusing to join ,or fight, or deploy, or pay taxes, or refusing to remain silent, and risk some personal consequence, or serving because they believe that some things are worth fighting and dying for, just as nations risk some national consequence legal or Illegal , win or lose.
            I’m a vet, but I am no longer at risk.. so I am on your level.. insofar as I am throwing words around in pretty much perfect safety .. because of those on the Ramparts. My watch is over.. but I still feel strongly that the facts have to be right, and full respect has to be paid to those who do put it on the line, for or against. There is no room for an agenda other than facts and conscience on their backs, they carry a heavy enough load as it is.

          • Dee

            Here is another Example of the UN Charter being used , that would seem to indicate the UN doesn’t seem to think that War is illegal or that the use of Force is Illegal.


            There was a lot made of the fact at the time that everybody was calling it a “Police Action” instead of a war .. A Rose by any other name smells the same.

          • Carl_Herman

            I think I understand you perfectly, Dee: your main point is, “And this is the key thing.. if you cite the UN Charter as your basis .. then you have to live with the UN Charter and it’s procedures for deciding these things. And that only happens one way.”

            My point is that your Oath of Enlistment, and all of us with Oaths to the US Constitution empower us to refuse OBVIOUSLY unlawful orders and OBVIOUSLY unlawful wars. This article on sports “law” is an appropriate analogy. The document you cite of JAG’s Operational Law Handbook perfectly explains war law and provides the facts for anyone to see that the US does not meet the lawful requirement of imminent or actual attack against us from another nation’s government, AND the UN Security Council did not authorize any use of force (the opposite that the US violated). This handbook goes on to lie by saying a UN Security Council Resolution (1368) somehow authorizes the US to interpret 9/11 as blanket authority for armed attack when it actually restates the UN treaty limits above.

            Your military training included instruction to refuse unlawful orders that would have you commit War Crimes, such as targeting and killing civilians. Your training warned that you must refuse such OBVIOUSLY unlawful orders, or face consequences. Unfortunately, your basic training did not include recognizing unlawful wars.

            You say that there is no legal argument without agreement from the same military and political “leadership” conducting the wars, or the captured UN. I say that anyone can, and should, understand war law to recognize OBVIOUS unlawful Wars of Aggression.

            Do I understand you, Dee? And do you understand me?

          • Dee

            Carl no you don’t understand me or the issue ..

            At the Nuremburg Trials 8 leaders were convicted for crimes of conspiring or planning against Peace and 12 total including some of the 8 for waging wars of aggression.. These are you Illegal War laws aka Crimes against Peace… they are charges brought against nations and leaders .. they are not brought against the troops.

            War Crimes, under the Hague and Geneva Conventions are about how to conduct a humane war

            Two separate things Crimes against peace is a collective crime committed by Nations and their leaders . Actual criminal action by soldiers in war are War crimes Different Treaties different jurisdictions, normally a nation punishes it’s own soldiers for war crimes to stay within the limits of a treaty, The UN brings consequences against nations for crimes against peace. The UN doesn’t send out a UNSCR for Sgt. Smith and his Platoon for shooting up a village Or Company B because they were inhumane to prisoners they were guarding.. Nor does the Un decide if a war is illegal or legal based on the conduct of the troops fighting it. Maybe a General that planned or advised going to war, but not the troops and how they fought it. And if new weapons are developed and no rules for them are written you can do pretty much anything with them you want until rules are made and ratified by your nation.. signing on to the rules is voluntary.. Unless you are a leader and your side looses. The winners are always innocent of crimes against Peace, only the losers ever get tried.

            Winner or loser if your nation is a signatory to the Hague and Geneva convention your own country can try you for war crimes. That is why troops are taught the applicable rules .. The Oath is to Follow lawful orders and defend the Constitution.. and by extension the Treaties .. So if you refuse and order that you feel is illegal you stand Courts Martial by your own Army to see if you were right or wrong.

            If you feel a war is illegal you either don’t serve at all or if you are already in you willfully violate an order to participate and stand trial to see if you violated a lawful order .. that may or as we see with Watada may not involve if a war is illegal or not ruling.. but a war is only illegal if the UNSCR says it is and your country is under some sanction or consequence for waging illegal war because a UNSCR says it is.

            The troops don’t get prosecuted , they are at no legal risk if a war is illegal or not, as long as they themselves don’t commit any war crimes under the Hague and Geneva conventions.

            Whether a war is illegal or not only applies at the National level. Troopies can claim a war is illegal or not.. but it really is pointless and does them no good unless the UN has ruled a war is illegal , and I provided a example of that with UNSCR 84. It is unmistakable. Specific consequences and means to stop you from waging illegal war are included in the UNSCR., Including what nations and armies are being sent to stop you.

            If you say you will not follow an illegal order you get courts martialed and the Judge and Jury of your peers decide if you did the right thing or violated a lawful order under fire and then you can be shot. So you better be right.


            Now an order does not have to be illegal or unlawful in every case.. you can give orders , and I have that are perfectly legal that people disobeyed and got away with it .. as an example.. when I was an Instructor I would order the students to only mark the correct answers on a test, many disobeyed and despite my best efforts I could not get them courts martialed as I promised to do .. but it did make them sweat. Not even an Article 15. Such are the fortunes of war.

            And quite frankly you have got to be one of the most hardhead clueless people I have ever had this conversation with. You don’t understand what orders are, what the UCMJ is, or how it works, or what treaties and conventions or charters cover what , apply to what , or how rulings are created, or by who, or for what purpose, or who they can or can’t apply to .. you mix and match and confuse one with the other.

            Do you really think some poor E-3 can decide if a war is illegal or legal when that can only be decide by a Political Vote by the UN Security Council and that that vote will be driven by national level Political agendas and not by any factual application of an law ..rather judgment calls about if a UN principle applies . Not to mention the complications under International law due to the principle Jus cogens

            And when some of the terms in the UN Charter that are really important to this discussion have no official legal meaning. No legal authority exists for the definition of the terms “territorial integrity”, “political independence” and “sovereignty”.
            So legality or illegality of war is a political vote.. America going to war is a political vote, how do you teach a private how to figure what a vote on these issues might be when the people who are supposed to vote don’t bother to vote on it or ever make a decision.
            All you can do is decide what is morally best for you and take your punishment if the courts martial says you are legally or politically wrong.

          • Carl_Herman

            Again, Dee, I think I understand you perfectly with the text I quoted from you before and now this: “So legality or illegality of war is a political vote.. America going to war is a political vote,…”

            You argue that war policy is a function of what is said. What is said/dictated/dictatorship is the polar opposite of the Enlightenment ideal our Founding Fathers gave us: a LIMITED government under law with UNALIENABLE rights that government’s purpose is to secure, with governmental power derived from the consent of the governed.

            LIMITED government means there are defined, objective, and understood areas where government SHALL NOT ACT. Dee, this is basic education if you want a constitutional republic and not an unlimited dictatorship to do what they want under whatever BS they choose to say.

            The two treaties that ended wars of choice are crystal-clear in letter and intent, Dee. They place any armed attack outside a narrow and clear definition of self-defense as outside the limits of governmental policy. Again, I ask readers to invest the hour or so to read them for themselves to see just how clear they are.

            That, Dee, is what LIMITED government means in action where it counts that I’m “hardheaded” to insist we honor, and not in some forgotten text definition for some forgotten purpose that dishonors the Americans that provided us with this opportunity for clear political and civil freedoms.

            If Americans want limited government under our Constitution rather than dictatorship for unlimited wars and all the other evils you communicate you’re aware of, then an E-1 and E-2 should understand these treaties as the most important military education he/she receives, and a requisite to master before entering any armed conflict.

            So, Dee, thank you for your voice. I wish you well on the path you see best to achieve justice and peace.

          • Dee

            Your Idea of limited and the founding fathers idea aren’t the same.. congress has the power to declare war.. period The President has the power to conduct the war congress declared.

            If you want Constitution Grounds to object to those two basically unlimited powers you need to look elsewhere

            What you seem to not understand is the Constitution is a list or the Rights our Founding Fathers agreed to give up so they could form a government. the whole

            We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

            But you would know all this if you took the blinders off and actually accepted that what things say, they say.. you try to twist everything to fit your agenda and not everything does. And you won’t listen and you won’t look any farther into other possibilities that might work for what you are trying to accomplish.. God I swear it is so sad.. I really feel sorry for you…

            Article 1 section 8 the powers of Congress .. ( the powers of Congress are specific and delegated to it by We the People, if we don’t give the power to Congress they don’t have it. But these are some of the specific powers we granted Congress, Read the Constitution for the full list) We didn’t give them every power, we the people retained many of them too many to list really and it doesn’t matter if we list them or not.. The Government only has those Powers specifically mention in the Constitution .. the rest belong to the people and the States and the States have constitutions as well where the people of a State grant the State Government certain power but only those mentioned in the State Constitution. And that is what is meant by Limited Government. Prior to our invention of limited government ,The King , by Divine Right had total authority and the people only had what right the King or Tyrant granted them as a favor. We flipped that based on “all just powers come from the consent of the governed” We change the basic rule that you had to have permission or a law giving permission to do anything to everything is legal unless there is a law forbidding it,
            But once you give the Federal government or individual state power by authority of the Constitution, the only way to take it back is to amend the Constitution. The Founding fathers gave the National Government the unlimited power to declare war, and forbade that power to the individual states and the people. That was the deal.

            here is a small excerpt from section 8

            To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

            To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

            To provide and maintain a Navy;

            To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

            To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

            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;

            A little history .. we have two Armies .. The US Army and the Army of the United States they are not the same.. I’ll let you discover the difference

            Up until and thru WW2 most Army Units belonged to the various States .. It was pretty obvious back during the US Civil War Units like the famous 54th of Massachusetts , 2nd Alabama , 15th Virginia in WW2 we had units like the 36th Infantry Division “Big T” (Texas) 69th Infantry Regiment ( New York)

            Anyway the Constitution hasn’t changed, but a lot of laws have and the whole structure of the Army has , just as an example

            None of this has anything to do directly with the legality of war ( that horse has left the barn)… but there some interesting bits about the legality of the Army. I’ll let you find them

          • Carl_Herman

            Dee, with all respect, I think we’re done here. You’re sad, I gently suggest, because you’ve surrendered the power of objective law to psychopaths in “leadership” who twist it into the best BS they imagine to sell in order to engage in Orwellian crimes, including Wars of Aggression.

            The US is not engaged in self-defense in their wars, Dee. And the facts show it is not even close to the definition of “self-defense.” We all understand circumstances that cause closer scrutiny to the letter and intent of the law, AND we all understand when actions are obviously outside the law. These are as clear as the sports analogies in this article.

            When we win, we will look back at this history similar to the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes, and know that the few of us pointing and shouting were simply speaking obvious truth based on clear definitions of “clothes” and “wear.”

            You are sad because you’ve surrendered to Orwellian language by so-called “leaders.”

            So, go your way, Dee. I wish you well.

          • Dee

            Silly, I’m sad because you don’t get this important topic.. and I am not going anywhere… Hey I have an Idea .. how about you find some outside sources to actually refute some of the key points I have made. Like maybe you can find a UNSCR that supports you opinion , and has some sanctions on US for inappropriate aggression of something? Find someplace where some duly constituted authority that actually has the power to enforce a treaty or similar has attempted to enforce sanction on the US and what those sanctions were?
            You know.. some actual facts? I mean if you want to actually continue to say that there is anything any where higher than a personal opinion of what the treaties say that agrees with you.
            I think any readers are understanding me. Except you… and this last gambit, of trying to tell me why I am sad.. that is the rudest think I think I have seen for a while.. I am quiet capable of knowing and expressing why your delusional theories and spin doctoring and lack of understanding of an important subject is making me sad.. you don’t get to redefine and twist that like you do the truth that you are twisting about war and peace.
            You just want me to stop posting facts.

          • Carl_Herman

            Alright, Dee: let’s summarize. You reject my arguments that the US wars are unlawful because they are not close to the lawful requirements. I argue that law is meant to communicate objective reality just like traffic law, rules in sports, or family rules, and the facts my articles document show that current US wars were started with lies known to be false as they were told, and given the definition of “self-defense” that the US armed attacks are not close to that reality. Moreover, I document history that this is business as usual for US wars. You seem to require a legal ruling before an assertion that the US wars are unlawful on their face.

            So let me ask you to substantiate your specific documentation of lawful war from the JAG Operational Law Handbook with a few questions.

            In Chapter One, the handbook does a great job of summarizing war law, including that “preventive self-defense,” that is, without imminent threat of attack, is illegal.

            How does UNSCR 1368 authorize use of force rather than just affirm the limitations of self-defense under the UN treaty that the handbook just described?

            How does attack, invasion, and occupation of Afghanistan not violate the handbook’s own description of the limits of self-defense, especially since UNSCR 1368 and 1373 specifically call for cooperation to get the facts, and then justice under the law for the 9/11 criminals?

            How is OEF under the US Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) not an illegal attack, invasion, and occupation of Iraq when AUMF specifically notes its adherence to the War Powers Act, which specifically reminds everyone that all use of US military must conform to our treaty obligations, given the UN Charter treaty obligation contains the limits described in the JAG handbook?

            The JAG handbook doesn’t answer these questions, yet states Judge Advocates have the responsibility to brief people on legal justifications for US armed attacks: “A clear, well-conceived, effective, and timely articulation of the legal basis for a particular mission is essential to sustaining support at home and gaining acceptance abroad.”

            Can you answer these questions to satisfy the burden of proof of lawful US armed attacks, Dee?

          • Dee

            Okay, here goes.. But I need to make a few things clear first. War is War, you can call it peacekeeping, police action, legal, illegal, Just, unjust, war is war. Weapons have gotten ever more lethal, the individual power of a human to kill and destroy has gone way past rocks and knives and face to face one at a time.

            At the beginning of the 20th Century nations start trying to make rules about how to fight wars and then how to , if not avoid wars, at least give diplomacy a chance.

            We actually managed to make some effective laws about unnecessary violence during war.. and what made the rules laws was the ability to enforce and enforce with some level of proportionality that can actually give pause and give somebody something to think about before they take unfair advantage or commit violence merely for the horror of it. What makes a law a law , is it is clearly defined , The Hague and Geneva Conventions make specific acts crimes, The signatories are obligated to punish violators within their own system of law, win or lose and if they do not, their own soldiers there own civilians, their own towns can no longer expect the protections of the Conventions, and if they don’t effectively stop the violation individuals can be tried in an international court, regardless of who “wins” the war. That is why you call laws “laws” and crimes “crimes” They are clearly defined, nobody is allowed to play games with the words and there is sure punishment for the people responsible for violations. So much so , that since at the time the Conventions were drawn up, Carpet Bombing of civilian cities just hadn’t been conceived of yet, attacks from the air was not covered.. and to save the credibility of what the international community had made war crimes and the process .. nobody tried to force meaning out of words that was clearly not there and nobody tried to abuse the ratification process to jam more things that should be crimes into the Conventions thru some emergency process. They still haven’t got “Strategic Bombing” in the convention, but they have got land mines that can’t be easily and effectively cleared and a few other things, Chemical Weapons, And didn’t lose any signatories or trade off any other violations. They did it with a eye towards credibility and practical enforcement .

            The Kellogg Briand Pact was poorly written, the only consequence was if you attack somebody , nobody could say it was violation of K-B if somebody attack you.. The League of Nations was similarly flawed and when they tried to enforce the no war provisions on Japan over China, Japan simply withdrew followed by Italy over Ethiopia and eventually it collapsed altogether as totally ineffective.

            The UN ha articles and principles, it does not have Laws

            Its Purpose is here

            It cites in part “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;”

            The key words to look at here are “Effective collective measures” coupled with the Articles 39 thru 51 show the clear possibility for diplomacy to sanctions to armed force to enforce the decisions of the security council, This collective defense option and the clear possibility of the use of force

            Starting with article 42

            and thru article 51 is a clear progression to armed enforcement if diplomacy and sanctions fails.

            this is what the League of Nations and K-B lacked

            But to back up for a minute The UN Charter also mentions the Principles of Justice and International law.. those are both real things
            John Rawls was key in creating both the Nuremburg Trials and UN Charter of Human Right and is reflected in the rest of the Statement of the Purpose of the United Nations from Article 1

            To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

            To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

            To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends

            The Purpose of the UN also cites International Law and Human Rights

            So the UN has a bunch of stuff to enforce and a bunch of reason to call nations to the table to talk, for the Security Council to impose sanctions or command, as a last resort the use of force to stop violations of the UN Charter, International Law, the Principles of Justice and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And in keeping with these Principles and Responsibilities The UN has to follow it’s own rules .. so they work with Nation diplomatically on all sorts of things .. especially human right , when the local culture doesn’t see things in such a Universal way or sees Justice quiet the same way.. they don’t come down like a ton of Bricks for nothing or even sometimes some pretty important things.

            In the case of Afghanistan

            A long list of 43 UNSCR endorsing US Sanctions and reminding other member states of their obligations to enforce them against the Taliban , Condemning Taliban human rights violations , endorsing the New Government of Karzai mandating US Force help Build the Afghan Army, reminding member states of their duty to hunt down Bin laden not just the US everybody and the Taliban as well , Reminding governments that women have human rights .. and finally UNSCR 1386 welcoming the developments in Afghanistan ( the US Invasion) that came out of UNSCR 1368
            A similar case can be made for Iraq Including UNSCR’s Authorizing Force against Iraq appointing the US and the UK as occupying power and extending the mandate for the Multinational Force. And on top of that direct agreements with the Iraqi government on US troops stay in Iraq until there wasn’t and we left in accordance of the Iraqi Governments wishes. As we are doing in Afghanistan if satisfactory agreements cannot be reached.
            In Both cases multiple violations to justify the UNSCR’s of International law, UN Charter, various arms agreements, and war crimes, and human rights violations were cited , some multiple times with requests for compliance. UNSCR’s included as consequences installing new governments.
            But nowhere and at no time in either case or any case similarly situated is the term legal or Illegal used . since there are only principles and agreements involved , authorized and unauthorized maybe.. but so far everything has been , at least in general authorized within the normal friction of two sovereign States.. and that is also Key.. we treat the nations of Iraq and Afghanistan as equal sovereign States and UN members in negotiation that are constantly necessary.
            None of this means I think we should be there, r have ever gone there, it is sometimes a hard choice for me between staying out of something that at one level is just none of our business or meeting our obligations under the UN Charter or acting within our principles as the Nation that invented Human Rights and rightly or wrongly feels we have an obligation to defend them everywhere in the whole freaking world. It would be easier for me, even being against war .. if the equation was a little more of the blood and treasure of the folks we are helping and a little less of our own blood and treasure.
            The Enemy are people too.. they have Human Rights too .. doesn’t mean I approve of their customs or the way their cultures treats women, children and minorities and I am not fan of tyrants.. but the illegality if there is any and I think there is isn’t happening overseas .. we are right as a Nation with every Charter and convention and treaty in the book.. how we have truncated human rights at home in the name of security is clearly illegal. And to spend even more energy screaming illegal war overseas , when there is no such thing as legal or illegal in war at the national level only authorized or unauthorized , endorsed or not endorsed by international organizations and take energy and effort away from fighting illegal violations of our Human Rights and a distorted and twisted version of Justice right here at home just pisses me off.

          • Carl_Herman

            Thank you, Dee; I’ll have more to say later and for now:

            You listed complaints, but didn’t answer: How does UNSCR 1368 authorize use of force on Afghanistan?

            The UN declared ceasefire on Iraq after the first Gulf War. You also listed complaints, but didn’t answer: how is AUMF an authorized use of force on Iraq?

            The JAG legal handbook specifically discusses lawful and unlawful war/armed attack/use of force, so I’ll have more later on that topic.

            Thank you, Dee; you’re welcome to debate me (not collaborate) on an upcoming article to explain the US military’s legal argument for “lawful” war in the JAG handbook. Let me know if you change your mind; I won’t/don’t edit others’ arguments, merely make suggestions for clarity that others’ are welcome to accept or decline.

          • Dee

            Carl read the darn UNSCR

            When they say Combat.. they mean Combat.. but even more than that, UNSCR 1386

            Carl when the Jag handbook is discussing lawful and unlawful war it is talking about the Hague and Geneva Conventions and the specific act that are war crimes, shelling defenseless civilians stuff like that. The stuff that the individual soldier can be arrested and courts martialed for. It is a very basic distinction. These are treaties, conventions , charters they are in formal and specific diplomatic language words mean certain things to avoid any confusion, laws mean laws and laws are called laws in the convention , principles are called principles and mean principles in the Charter crimes mean crimes and are called crimes .. and combat means combat in the UNSCR.. These are not just casual phrases and have casual meanings .. you can’t afford ambiguous language, when the UNSCR says Combat, authorized forces, when 1386 says ?The Council, unanimously adopting resolution 1386 (2001) as orally revised, also called upon Member States to contribute personnel, equipment and other resources to the Force and authorized those States participating in it to take all necessary measures to fulfil its mandate” All necessary means all necessary means.
            These aren’t platitudes, you don’t use platitudes when you send armed forces in to enforce UN Principles.. and all the applicable UNSCR’s apply.. they document the process of asking nicely , insisting, reminding, and then blow the hell out of them. Combat, all necessary means .. deal with it
            but you have to read all the links, it is all there, the words they use mean exactly what they say. If the Jag manual is talking about unlawful war then it is talking and only talking about the Law of Land warfare, the Hague and Geneva Conventions that list specific crimes. these details matter to the understanding of what is being discussed … this is not a subject matter where you can allow confusion , lives depend on it being crystal clear.

          • Carl_Herman

            Dee: You say that UNSCR 1368 authorizes “combat” with the sentence, “The Security Council…5. Expresses its readiness to take all necessary steps to respond to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, and to combat all forms of terrorism, in accordance with its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations;”

            Thank you for the clarification of the evidence you find. I invite any interested readers to verify that this sentence in no way authorizes anyone for armed attack.

            You did not respond for a second time to this: “The UN declared ceasefire on Iraq after the first Gulf War. You also listed complaints, but didn’t answer: how is AUMF an authorized use of force on Iraq?”

            Further, I invite anyone to check JAG’s legal handbook to verify that you are incorrect: Chapter One deals with lawful or unlawful war under the UN Charter (it ignores the Kellogg-Briand treaty), and Chapter Two deals with Hague and Geneva Conventions during war. Therefore, according the the US military’s legal handbook to advise its own officers, soldiers, and public: they agree war can be lawful or unlawful.

            I’m going to devote my time to another article to present JAG’s argument, Dee. I doubt I’ll find it useful to comment further here.

            Thank you again for alerting me to this source of argument.

          • Dee

            Carl, I hate to get trite.. But I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you.

            The Iraq ceasefire had conditions that Iraq had to keep to keep the ceasefire.. inspections, inspectors, no fly zones, no attacking the Kurds .. and Carl, I am not listing complaints.. I am quoting the Complaints that the UNSC list in their UNSCR that also prescribe corrective actions to be taken by other member States.

            And you continue the ” ignore the process” game with the AUMF.. Senate Joint resolution means it is a Law .. now you want to say the AUMF is illegal , for whatever reason, doesn’t matter really, doesn’t comport with the UN Charter in your opinion, somebody lied to get it passed ..whatever… What matters, and all that matters, when it comes to it’s legality, is the Opinion of the 9 Wise Souls on the bench at the Supreme Court. They get to say if a Law is Legal or Illegal and only them.. If they remain silent, a law is legal as passed, if somebody disagrees, there are processes to try and put it before SCOTUS to get a decision.

            But until then it is US Policy and Law… and we acted on it.. Now if somebody thinks how we acted on it was in violation of some treaty, or International Charter, or Convention , likewise, there is a Process.. it has to be ruled on by the appropriate competent court.. for the UN that is the IJC.. they can decide if something somebody thinks is a violation of the Charter is a Violation or The UNSC can issue a UNSCR saying it is a violation of the Charter but until that happens , if they remain silent, then our Policy is perfectly “legal” in every practical, operational, and factual sense. Doesn’t keep anybody in any Country that allows free speech to say otherwise, but for all intents and purposes saying that something is illegal , that no competent authority that actually has the authority and the responsibility says is illegal, is very pointless and meaningless .

            I think part of your problem in grasping what is happening is that despite the fact I list Two specific UNSCR’s that do two different things to the same effect, that complement each other, you failed to notice that the numbers were different, UNSCR 1368 and UNSCR 1386 and in UNSCR 1386 they make their case and list a number of other INSCR etc and really make it clear that combat means combat

            Honestly I didn’t put the UN up to numbering those like they did just to confuse you.. I assumed that you were actually into this enough to read all the applicable UNSCR’s in an honest attempt to get the truth and actually understand, and not just cherry pick stuff to play gottcha , and deliberately seek confirmation bias satisfying factoids

  • Deb915

    If there are any traders out there trading the Forex I wanted to warn you don’t waste your time I’ve been trying to make money with it for years! Go to the website Traders Superstore and get into trading the futures instead it’s much better now I’m making money trading and very happy.