UN ‘leaders’ as corrupt as US/UK/Israel: We the People must demand arrests or suffer endless war

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s official statements about Israel’s most recent armed attack upon Gaza are Orwellian lies of omission because they fail to uphold the one and only legal authority of the UN: to stop Wars of Aggression.

Allowing “developed nations” to have unlawful wars is consistent with UN history. A recent example is Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s silence for 18 months in official statements over the US/UK’s armed attacks and invasion of Iraq, to finally admit in 2004 when directly asked if that war is illegal:

“Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view and from the Charter point of view it was illegal.”

Please note Anan’s timidity of language, failure to act as Chief Administrator in his only area of legal authority, and pretense that clear violation of law is somehow a “point of view” rather than obvious assertion of objective facts. One of the only insights we have of government assessment of Iraq war illegality is the still-unpublished UK report that disclosed in public testimony in 2010:

All the lawyers in the UK’s Foreign Affairs Department concluded the US/UK invasion of Iraq was an unlawful War of Aggression. Their expert advice is the most qualified to make that legal determination; all 27 of them were in agreement. This powerful judgment of unlawful war followed the Dutch government’s recent unanimous report.

The UN Charter makes all armed attacks by government illegal unless in response to attack by another nation’s government.

In the US/UK-led armed attack on Iraq, this is not even close to lawful. For the UN Secretary-General to be silent rather than uphold UN treaty law in his one and only area of job responsibility is a game-changing revelation that sometime soon will become Emperor’s New Clothes-obvious evidence of UN “leaders’” criminal conspiracy for Wars of Aggression; the Orwellian opposite of its stated purpose.

The United Nations is the creation of the winners for the Second World War of Colonial Empire (WW2). This followed wars for hundreds of years among “developed nations” to steal as much of the world as possible.

The UN, therefore, was never intended as an instrument for “world peace” by imperialistic nations, but to protect empire with empty rhetoric of “peace.”

The letter and spirt of the law that is the UN Charter is a powerful tool for We the People to demand arrests of US/UK/Israel “leaders” who commit obvious War Crimes for unlawful and lie-began Wars of Aggression. And that said, official statements of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon minces around Israel’s armed attacks on Gaza without any apparent interest in upholding UN law. Examples:

Therefore and obviously, the UN Secretary-General is not doing his job of stopping unlawful Wars of Aggression, but shedding crocodile tears in pretense of caring about somebody else somewhere, somehow doing the job he’s sworn to do.

Our world of the present under US/UK/Israel Wars of Aggression with UN criminal complicity is the same as described powerfully from a victim of Roman Empire’s version of peace:

It is no use trying to escape their arrogance by submission or good behavior. Robbers of the world, having by universal plunder exhausted the land, their drive is greed. If the enemy be rich, they are rapacious; if poor, they lust for domination. Neither rule of the East nor West satisfies them. Alone among men, they crave with equal eagerness poverty and riches. To plunder, slaughter, seize with false pretenses, they give the lying name ‘empire.’ And where nothing remains but a desert, they call that ‘peace.’                 – Tacitus, The Agricola and the Germania

Today’s United Nations will uphold peace just as well as the ancient Roman Senate. This will continue until US/UK/Israel/UN “leaders” are arrested for Crimes Against Humanity (among many categories of crime) centering in war and money.


  • Are you demanding arrests (lawful stop) for US/UK/Israel wars covered by UN Orwellian rhetoric, or must you have more suffering and death? 
  • If you disagree about such arrests, for whatever strategic reason, what is your better idea???
  • And please remember your role as a guest on Earth; do what you can in peace (here, here) 🙂


This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Just facts

    38% of all UNHRC resolutions have been directed at Israel alone.

    Between 2006 and 2012…
    48 reports condemning Israel
    9 reports condemning Syria
    3 reports condemning Iran
    0 reports condemning China

    So you were saying something about bias?

    • Romi Elnagar

      So, you think it would be more fair and balanced to have more reports praising Nazi Germany?

  • Southernfink

    Brilliant article,

    The author made many excellent points that yes, those who have committed war crimes must be arrested and held accountable or this otherwise preventable madness simply will not stop.

    The US is pushing the world towards the brink of world war three, while the logic for doing so, is based on nothing but unsupported accusations, lies.

    Nothing short of a revolution will stop this, for those who are meant to look after the people’s liberties and protect them from harm will not allow themselves to be scrutinized — From Washington to Wellington, they cowardly hide behind the dark cloak of secrecy — anything that cannot be answered truthfully — immediately invites the now almost standard reply — Sorry, I cannot answer that — It’s a matter of national security, we’re protecting US interests.

    The only solution is revolution, and that might need to come from real patriots within the machine.

    • Dee

      If the objective is ending war and violence, working for Peace… how does advocating revolution fit into that objective?
      For that matter how does the violence and coercion of arrest and other police powers, such as incarceration fit into the way of Peace?
      The nonviolent way, the Peaceful way would be to educate everybody in nonviolent direct action and work to change the hearts and minds of those that use war, violence, police powers, and coercion in general so they can realize their mistakes and change their ways.
      Using violence and force to stop violence and force is exactly what the major powers of the world currently say they are doing, and what every group of people that feel oppressed are doing to throw off their oppressors. Peace means no longer using the old ways of violence and force to stop violence and force and oppression.
      You folks really need to figure out what you really want.

      • Gina

        For that reason I refer very often to the works of Alice Miller: e.g.

        or these links:

        In Alice Miller’s books we learn why it is so difficult to reach adults. All the causes for their distorted minds are lying deep down in the unconscious. What can we do against the present slaughter?

      • Carl_Herman

        The warmongers are a type of criminal, Dee. If you want to reach their hearts and minds without arrests (lawful stop), I support that approach. For others, we see lawful arrests as practical just as we lovingly act to stop a child or animal from destructive behaviors.

        Arrests stop violence, Dee.

        And the UN’s record should be embraced factually, not with yet more “hope for change.”

        • Dee

          Good Morning Carl, force and violence is force and violence.. and assuming the powers of a state, police powers, is just another form. Who appointed you as judge and jury? You cannot use force and violence to end force and violence .. it just makes you the one using force and violence. Both sides in any war think they are justified, both sides have grievances, both sides have supporters. The side you choose to support by arresting one side may approve of your actions, but the other side just sees you as their enemies ally.. it stops nothing, you can’t stop wars by arresting one sides leaders .. that is like trying to kill ideas with guns.
          When international law appears unfair to some States, they just leave the organization enforcing international law and go their own way, as happened after WW1, and if you are overly harsh or seen as imposing unfair penalties you just hasten the next World War.. we have already made that mistake.
          If you truly believe force and violence is wrong, renounce it, in all it’s forms.. just reserving force and violence strictly for those you agree with is not even internally consistent.
          You arrest them, then they arrest you. And then we have a war.

          • Remove Veto power. Demand Equal Protection for other nation states. Follow Article 92 thru 96 like the gospel.

            Not so hard, was it?

            Or do you have a problem with equal protection as a concept? Only wolves would say no to that. Wink.

          • Dee

            I have no objection to equal protection/ equal vote in the security council, nor would it matter if I did.. Neither I, nor any other citizen of any country have any say in what the UN Charter says, nor is any country bound to follow the UN Charter or be a member of the UN. Countries only join if they feel it is to their advantage, and they only stay in the UN so long as it is to their advantage. If you took away the major perks , like the Veto for the 5 permanent members of the Security Council, the 5 major powers would probably leave and take their funding with them http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations#Funding

            We supply about a quarter of all funding.. many small and poor countries only have a military because they rent them out for peacekeeping and we pay for it , Bangladesh is an example.

            Any implementation of any UN Policy , save a veto by the permanent members, is a majority vote, per the Charter and each sovereign nation is totally within their rights to interpret the articles of the charter and actually any international law as they see fit with few exceptions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_cogens, but in all practicality, since no nation or group of nations has any right to force any other nation to adopt a treaty or join an organization of nations or stay in it, sometimes you have to make it worth while for a nation to participate, hence special rules and carve outs to get the major powers to play along. It is all a matter of getting a majority of the security council or general assembly to agree on a temporary policy .. with no penalty if you vote contrary to another countries interpretation of the Charter or any other aspect of international law.
            It also wouldn’t break my heart if we left the UN altogether. We are only in it to lend authority and further the objectives of the Charter , we really don’t benefit in any material or immaterial way, more a matter of trying to set a good example, and that is not always appreciated by those who want a perfect world now and are not willing to do the hard work to get there, rather they advocate revolution and the overthrow of governments and the arrest of UN officials and national leaders because they don’t get their way, or think they have magic simple solutions… anything to get the clicks .. and the ability to boast they would have saved the world if only the world would let them run it. .

          • Carl_Herman

            !Dee! You claim the US is only in the UN “to lend authority and further the objectives of the Charter” and that the US is “trying to set a good example”!

            Wow. Thanks for making the choice clear between your refuted position to support the US/UN/Israel/UK as they support Wars of Aggression, and those of us who want the law we’re promised to end such Wars of Aggression led by US/UK/Israel/UN leaders.

            Again: if you’re doing this for money (anything to get clicks), you’ll be glad in the near future when I argue for Truth & Reconciliation on your behalf rather than criminal prosecution as an accomplice to War Crimes.

          • Dee

            I’ll take the opinions of the individual readers of the merits of my writings .. Carl, if you feel the need to arrest me. please try.. it would make a nice test case.
            Your lack of understanding of international law is profound and delusional.. is there some computer game you play that I don’t know of ?

          • Carl_Herman

            Then we’re in agreement, Dee, to say what we choose for the readers’ consideration.

            And again we notice the lies to detract from the article’s subject: US/UK/Israel commit War Crimes supported by the UN. Those wars will end with those leaders’ arrests.

            Your conclusions prove my estimation of having nothing more to contribute for readers regarding what you choose to say. Everything you say helps make your position more and more clear.

          • Dee

            Glad you are on the record with that. 🙂

          • Dee, the problem is your “interpretation.”. If you simply used a Merriam Webster dictionary for each word, you would see the true intent of the UN. Your reasoning is Bullshit.

            It’s a another lie. And I am sick of liars. The UN’s purpose was to end war, not let it go on perpetually. Did you skip the preamble of the Charter or something?

            The only people see screaming to Leave the UN, are those in Christendom that stand to lose all the “footing” of their dire attempt to bring Ecclesiastical law into the United States. So we can go right back into another Dark Age. Another time, where scientists are deemed heretics, and burnt at the stake for simply telling the truth. That this tiny blue dot is not just the only place with life, and, reality does not center around your twisted version of a heaven/hell/earth. It went from truth, to being a Confidence trick for omega watches and oppression.

            Anything but a new era for humanity via Human Rights and progress. You sit their smug and say “we’ve got work”. Your right, we do. And people like you, are not helping. You are the ones holding us back. You are the ones that caused it by your negligence.

            Get out of the way and let it happen.

          • Dee

            And yet, the whole article above is all about how the UN is interpreting the UN Charter exactly as I describe, and how you guys want to arrest them for it.
            Maybe you should take it up with the UN or your ambassador to the UN?

          • Because it’s not being followed Dee. What the hell good is law, when it is not being adhered to? What the hell was the point in writing it down? That’s anarchy at that point. That’s inequality. That’s unlawful. One set of rules for those who think they “own” everything, vs the rest of the Earth. The Meek get shit on. The laws only apply against me, right? Never against the oppressors.

            Take a good look around Dee. A Good portion of our population doesn’t know where they will even get their next meal. Our police is a fucking military occupation with tanks in the streets. We can’t even share scientific knowledge and progress with Humanity, because entrenched interests will lose power as advances in pretty much everything will drive costs to zero and abundance will take over.

            You called me a Satanist before. I trying to follow Christs’ golden rule the best I can then. Love God, and treat others how I wish to be treated. You know, the only two laws Christ gave.

            Would you like bombs in your living room? Then what the heck makes you think someone else would? Apply it to the Charter, the Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant, etc, etc, etc. Do all of those only apply to you?

            It was written down so people can point to it and go, “AH THATS BULLSHIT!” It was written down for times exactly like THESE. It was written down so that the good souls in this world could stand up, and be EMPOWERED to stop it. So people could call for arrests, and show absolute without question, justification to do so.

            Personally I think the UN is being intimidated from doing it’s job. Arrest one and the little birdies will begin tweeting to save their asses.

          • Dee

            Then why don’t you arrest somebody?
            And Not, I don’t think the UN Charter applies to me, I don’t think any international law applies to me.. it applies to my nation , if and only if they signed or ratified the specific treaty in question.. then it is the responsibility of my nation to make laws that apply to me if they think it necessary to do so to comply with how they read and interpret the treaty. That is how it works. Sometimes international law is enforced against nations that violate it, but that is a very are thing and exceedingly difficult to enforce, usually a small ( in the terms of a national budget) fine. And there is no mechanism to actually enforce even that. ICC fined us for some stuff we did down in Nicaragua back during the Contra era, Couple hundred million IIRC, we ignored it, never paid.. never penalized for ignoring it. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=367&p1=3&p2=3&case=70&p3=5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States and that is how international law works, or not.

            Other examples http://www.johndclare.net/league_of_nations6_news.htm
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles No effective way of enforcement , except resumption of hostilities in both cases. How did that promote peace? Nations get tired of war and make treaties,, doesn’t mean a treaty is a good thing or a workable thing or will promote peace.
            If you want peace .. be peaceable, teach peace, “each one, teach one”
            Your own life is all you rightly control.. violence starts the minute you try to control another’s life.

          • Carl_Herman

            Thank you, Dee, for your kind suggestion that we should invest our activism for arrests outside our professional jurisdiction (except citizen arrest).

            You again argue Orwellian on us that treaties are not treaties, lawful action to end war promotes war, and violence in the context of this article is the same thing as stopping a thug from harming a family member.

            Hey, Dee, we also all notice you failed to answer: what if it was your own child rather than a child in Gaza that was being physically assaulted? What if the attacker didn’t prefer to be arrested, detained, tried? Would you simply let the assault continue because, hey, it’s super-violent for you even as a mother to do anything that controls the attacker!

            As you asked me, “Would you respect that (attacker’s will)? Or would you use force?” And: “what words would you use to express the imposition of your will on others?” So, Dee, you wouldn’t use arrest or force of any kind to protect your own child, I assume from your political philosophy?

            I like this question, Dee, and will copy it for reference to ask again when you ignore it a second time (like when you refused to answer what war law states and I kept asking like 10 times, remember).

          • Dee

            Oh, there is no reluctance here to answer. I would use whatever force or violence that I could or thought necessary to save my life or others, or prevent serious injury. But I would admit that it was violence and force, and I would do it with the full expectation that I would be arrested, and possibly tried, and possibly convicted for using that violence. I would not assume that my judgment was infallible or above the law, that is a matter for the courts. That is how it works, nobody gets a free pass just because they say it was self defense. Self defense, defense of others, is called the “necessity” defense in a court trial against the charge of using force, be it possibly killing an attacker, or just doing a citizens arrest against somebody in your own home and holding them for the police. Some places you cannot even claim “necessity” unless you can show you could not safely retreat, even in your own home, Not needing to retreat if your are in your own home, as the law is in some jurisdictions is known as the “Castle law” and not needing to retreat outside of your home is called “Stand Your Ground” Law. And in any case, I would have to show that the force I used was reasonable and likely to save a life or prevent serious harm for a “necessity defense ” to work. And as a Citizen , if I chose only to use the force or violence necessary to make a citizen’s arrest, I would have to show an actual crime had occurred or risk charges of false arrest or false imprisonment, if I am wrong, or couldn’t prove it in court, I would be criminally guilty of a crime. That is the difference between a citizen’s arrest and an arrest by a sworn officer.. sworn officers are indemnified against false arrest charges, even if they are wrong on the facts of the case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen's_arrest
            This why I speak up in opposition to your advice for folks to arrest world leaders and your claim it is an actual valid tactic with any possibility of success or that doing so would solve anything. It has no more chance of being excused under the law than assassination.
            With no court to endorse your action of arresting a world leader and no commission charging you with the responsibility of doing so , you are in essence advocating John Wilkes Booth’s original plan of kidnapping Lincoln or the US’s original tactic of “shock and awe” in an attempt to decapitate the Iraqi Government and killing Saddam, thinking that taking out a leader would stop or alter a nation’s plan to conduct a war or how it was executed, and prevent any death or suffering.
            Everything hinges on what a reasonable person would reasonably do, with a proveable reasonable chance of saving a life or preventing serious injury. Advocating shooting or arresting the Chief Of Police to show an attacker you mean business, and will use force to prevent violence, won’t work in a court of law if you are trying to save your child.
            Rather, taking the Arch Duke Ferdinand hostage/ arresting him or assassinating him in an attempt to stop WW1, just makes you complicit in all the deaths and injury from WW1.
            You, I hope, have noticed I have not ridiculed or belittled any of the calls for impeachment of national leaders, under the Constitution of that nation, for war crimes, or any suggestions that they be tried before the International Court based on a UNSCR calling for the same.
            On the other hand, your complete ignorance or disregard for how the law actually works has been the target of my mockery. And my position that what you have advocated is not only illegal, but would make matters worse, and is not a reasonable or defensible exercise in violence.

          • http://grandjuryresistance.org/grandjuries.html

            True Bills = Arrests. Title 18 USC 2441.

          • Dee

            Then maybe you should focus on changing or fixing the imperfections , as you see them, in the judicial system … before you try and change or save the world. because the Judicial system doesn’t need your personal approval or endorsement before it can inflict it’s will on your personal life.

            Yes, I know, if things were different, they wouldn’t be the same.

            If you want to fight the whole damn system and are willing to take your licks for doing so, go for it.

            On the other hand folks all over the world have found ways to protest and change things without breaking the law, or alternately to show the law is wrong.

            If you want to stop war there are some suggestions in this article http://www.plough.com/en/articles/2011/july/blessing-the-bombs

          • Dee. grand juries are the way to fix the judicial. District Attorney’s say the same thing. That’s not fighting anything. That is using the law as it was intended. what is the purpose of law according to the preamble of blacks law dictionary 4th edition?

          • Dee

            I dunno, tell me.. I may check your answer later for accuracy , nothing personal.. but you invoked the luminatti , so I have questions about your connection to reality.

          • Feel free. Somehow i think groups like national liberty alliance, are Christians lol.. Gnostic, but that is thier religious freedom to do so. I would consider myself Gnostic now too.

            Read blacks laws preamble yourself. It will take you a whole 5 minutes.

            Reality is quantum physics. Time to accept that.

          • Dee

            Hmmm just checked .. seems that the 2nd edition of Black’s in the latest in the public domain and that the 9th edition is the current one…
            Why should I buy the 4th and go with that one when the 9th is the current one.. I am assuming that you cite the 4th because that is the only used one you could find cheap?

            Preamble 1

            The continued existence of a free and democratic society depends upon recognition of the concept that justice is based upon the rule of law grounded in respect for the dignity of the individual and his capacity through reason for enlightened self-gov- ernment. 2 Law so grounded makes justice possi- ble, for only through such law does the dignity of the individual attain respect and protection. With- out it, individual rights become subject to unre- strained power, respect for law is destroyed, and rational self-government is impossible.
            Lawyers, as guardians of the law, play a vital role in the preservation of society. The fulfillment of this role requires an understanding by lawyers of their relationship with and function in our legal system. 3 A consequent obligation of lawyers is to maintain the highest standards of ethical con- duct.

            Come on Dee. Don’t be stupid. A 2000 page dictionary, is not the pocket edition.

            Want to double speak that to?

          • Carl_Herman

            Thank you for answering, Dee. So you would use force to stop an attacker using obvious violence upon your child who refused to be arrested/stopped.

            This would clearly be within your legal rights.

            And you refuse to call for arrests of US/UK/Israel War Criminals because you are uncertain whether their acts are criminal. This is where we differ. While you say war law makes armed attacks illegal, you refuse to call for arrests to stop attackers using obvious violence upon children and civilians.

            These are clearly unlawful Wars of Aggression that you wait for those complicit in the US/UK/Israel/UN leadership to call themselves guilty of.

            Good luck with that.

          • Dee

            Carl, try not to be so dense. Treaties are treaties and they apply to the conduct of nations, not citizens. Treaties may require national laws that apply to citizens, and those national laws apply to citizens or not. The US becoming a signatory of any treaty does not automatically create any domestic law, that is a separate process that may or may not succeed , and if it doesn’t succeed then that Treaty may have to power to sanction the signatories government for not passing laws to implement the treaty domestically, but not a citizen.
            The fundamental principle is that all just laws derive their legitimacy from the consent of the governed. The UN Charter nor any international treaty can apply to anybody who does not have a way to consent to their applicability. Citizens have no say in the making of treaties or their acceptance by a nation. But a nation, once it signs on to a treaty has the Constitutional process to implement laws to enact a treaty into domestic law, or not. And that Domestic law or lack thereof is what affects a citizen.

          • Carl_Herman

            Yeah, Dee, treaties are not really treaties, you keep claiming. The US Constitution under Article 6 doesn’t really mean anything, especially to those of us with Oaths to uphold the Constitution, you tell us.

            The US and UN work for peace through allowing wars that violate the UN Charter, you say.

            Yeah, we hear you, Dee.

          • Dee, the point you missed in said article was that the UN was broken from he start. It should be reformed as a federation of republic’s whose focus is science, abundance, equal protection, and human rights. Think a United States ideal for the world. A place to settle differences and cement human rights into law for all time.

            So, those who are kind soul’s work with it as much as possible in the human rights area, in hopes someone will listen.

            The UN should be reformed into a United Earth. Where we share this beautiful world with each other. Not take it away from the many to give to the few.

            Glad you think international law doesn’t apply to you. Could you tell us what that special maritime law is throughout Title 18? Hint, go back to 1871. Senate Report 93-549 is another place to begin digging.

            My opinion is that the UN was formed by the winners of world war 2, in order to cover up the real reason behind it, and there own atrocities. Much blame can be laid at the feet of Zionism and private banking. You are not applying Coram Nobis to your arguements.

            International law does, at least rights. Bill of rights amendment 9 and 10 are clear. All rights are reserved to the people. When additional rights, like the ones in the international covenant on civil and political rights are signed, you can track then right on to ammendment 9 and 10.

            As for arrests? Grand Juries are the way for that.

          • Carl_Herman

            More Orwellian Dee-speech: the topic of the article is how we have clear law that makes war unlawful that the UN “leaders” are complicit with the colonial-power “leaders” to ignore while those colonial powers continue to attack, invade, and loot.

            The article IS NOT about good leaders at the UN with good US leaders upholding ideals that somehow just don’t quit work out even though everyone tries hard and want peace.

            Speak for yourself what the article says to you, Dee.

          • MCB

            “The American of today, in fact, probably enjoys less personal liberty than any other man of Christendom, and even his political liberty is fast succumbing to the new dogma that certain theories of government are virtuous and lawful, and others abhorrent and felonious. Laws limiting the radius of his free activity multiply year by year: It is now practically impossible for him to exhibit anything describable as genuine individuality, either in action or in thought, without running afoul of some harsh and unintelligible penalty. It would surprise no impartial observer if the motto “In God we trust” were one day expunged from the coins of the republic by the Junkers at Washington, and the far more appropriate word, “verboten,” substituted. Nor would it astound any save the most romantic if, at the same time, the goddess of liberty were taken off the silver dollars to make room for a bas-relief of a policeman in a spiked helmet. Moreover, this gradual (and, of late, rapidly progressive) decay of freedom goes almost without challenge; the American has grown so accustomed to the denial of his constitutional rights and to the minute regulation of his conduct by swarms of spies, letter-openers, informers and agents provocateurs that he no longer makes any serious protest.” – H. L. Mencken – 1920

          • Dee

            The price of freedom is courage. Getting arrested under unjust laws is the core philosophy of NVCD. Unjust laws limiting freedom was the basis of King’s work against Jim Crow and racism , Unjust laws and civil disobedience, breaking those laws to provoke a response, usually violent or visibly and patiently unjust was the core tactic of Gandhi.. Mencken was a humorist and satirist .. if you believe there is any truth is what he is saying .. then you know how to change it. What is your plan? You asked me mine, now I ask you yours …

          • Dee

            Carl I think the article says that you don’t like the way the World/ The UN Signatories decide to execute the UN Charter using the process required by the UN Charter.
            I think it says that the world’s representatives, and the UN itself, read and understand the UN Charter differently than you do Carl, and that makes them wrong.

          • Most leadership today are psychopaths. Seriously. I was told the 4th amendment only applies to government, not the individual, two days ago. Where do you think such nonsense comes from.

            The Emperor wears no clothing.

          • Dee

            Not .. you were told.. so it must be true? read it on the internet did you? And now it is world leaders are crazy , not criminal so you are going to arrest them for that instead?

            If you think arresting folks is the answer , why isn’t anybody doing it? You know there are legal and moral processes you have to go thru, that anybody has to go thru, to be adjudicated as crazy or criminal ..

            If you believe in this arrest nonsense , then put together a case and take it before a magistrate and get a warrant. If there is any practicality or possibility or legal basis for this arrest’em all plan for world peace, will somebody please describe the due process and legal path to a warrant.

            A plan for world peace that has no identifiable way to implement, is not a plan, it is a fantasy.

            Just because somebody with no legal background make a claim on the internet does not make something true.. if they can’t identify an actual process to bring charges , to get a warrant , to identify a court with jurisdiction,

            Let’s say you want to arrest the president for example.. the Constitutional rules say you first must impeach in the senate and then try them in the house, That one is easy.. very clear cut.. so anybody got a senator that agrees with them? are you working with that Senator to introduce a bill of impeachment?

            Here is how you file international charges against an individual you think has committed a serious violation of international law / war crime http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/PIDS/publications/UICCEng.pdf

            There are specific requirements, if you are serious that arrests are the way.. this is now you do it. If you are serious about arrest being the way you are either following these specific steps or you are not working for peace.. it is that simple.. talking Big on a Blog is not working for peace.. following the steps in the above link or Contacting the ICC for more details is working for peace if you believe arrest is the way, ICC has limited funds , and you can always Kickstart or similar for funds.. there are a few steps that you must take before you can go to the ICC .. you have to show how a member state is not willing to bring charges in their own courts first as explained I the link above.. and that is “prove” not allege..
            nave those that think arrest is the way taken even the first , most basic steps to actually do something? No.. have they ever published the necessary procedures? No Does anybody actually think the advocates will actually do anything now that I have provided the information on how one actually prefers charges .. I don’t .. I think it is all bullshit and big talk to sound important, and that Carl and the folks here at Washington’s blog have neither the courage or intention to actually do anything else but whine about how world leaders are criminals and how the world is so unfair.
            So now it is put up or shut up and find some way to actually work for peace that they actually are willing to do, other than bullshit about it.

          • Read: http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/runaway.htm

            Presentment power has to be restored for it to function correctly. Jesus Dee, how much do they pay you? How much did your soul cost?

          • Dee

            Presentment power is outlined in the link, you really should read it

          • Yes, it is.


            The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires that no
            person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime except
            by a presentment or indictment of a grand jury.[89]

            What all authorities recognize as a “presentment,” however, has been
            written out of the law and is no longer recognized by the federal

            A presentment is a grand jury communication to the public concerning the
            grand jury’s investigation. It has traditionally been an avenue for expressing
            grievances of the people against government.[91 ] In early American
            common law, the presentment was a customary way for grand juries to accuse
            public employees or officials of misconduct.[92] While an
            “indictment” was normally thought to be invalid without the signature of a
            government prosecutor, a presentment required no formal assent of any entity
            outside the grand jury. In early America, a presentment was thought to be an
            indictment without a prosecutor’s signature and a mandate to a district
            attorney to initiate a prosecution.[93]

            According to Professor Lester B. Orfield, who served as a member of the
            Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure, the drafters of Rule 6
            consciously decided that the term “presentment” should not be used in the Rules
            — even though the term appears in the Constitution.[94]
            “Retention,” wrote Orfield, “might encourage the use of the ‘run-away’ grand
            jury as the grand jury could act from their own knowledge or observation and
            not only from charges made by the United States attorney.”[95]

            A presentment is generally drafted from the knowledge and findings of
            the jurors themselves, rather than a prosecutor, and signed individually by
            each juror who agrees with it. A presentment at common law stood public with or
            without approval of a prosecutor or court. In the early days of the Republic,
            the Attorney General hinted that a federal prosecutor was obliged to indict
            upon the presentment by the grand jury.[96] Thus, Rule 6 represented
            a monumental — and deliberate — change of grand jury
            practice.[97] Orfield’s peculiar use of the term “runaway” grand
            jury in the committee notes may mark both the advent of this term into the
            legal lexicon[98] and the loss to history of true grand jury

            With the Federal Rules, the grand jury was drastically altered, in what
            can only be seen as an immense assault on the grand jury as an institution, if
            not an absolute coup d’etat upon it. The rule drafters deliberately
            pigeonholed the citizen grand jury into a minor role of either approving or
            disapproving of a prosecutor’s actions. With the enactment of Rule 6, the
            federal government’s undeclared war on the grand jury was almost won. What
            remained of the federal grand jury as a free institution was left to the
            federal courts to whittle away even further.

            The federal courts were quick to uphold the federal rules when it came
            to deciding matters relating to the grand jury. In almost cyclical logic, the
            federal courts have claimed in near unison that presentments accusing
            unindicted persons of crime cannot be allowed, absent judge or prosecutor
            approval, “past unchallenged practice” notwithstanding.[100] Thus,
            hundreds of years of grand jury jurisprudence was overthrown by

            Justification for hobbling grand juries in this manner was based on the
            argument that those who are accused in grand jury documents are denied due
            process rights that the courts have a duty to protect.[102 ] It was
            argued that allowing the continuance of common law grand jury powers would
            expose countless persons — many of them government agents — to
            unanswerable accusations in the public eye.[103] Protecting public
            officials from public scorn thus won out over upholding the traditional powers
            of federal grand juries. Numerous avenues for innocent persons to fight such
            accusations are available.[104] Nevertheless, courts during the
            latter twentieth century have appeared to uniformly adopt the “protect people
            from grand jury accusations” rationale for barring the federal grand juries
            from issuing presentments.[105]

            Another aspect of the grand jury’s lost powers that has received little
            consideration in the legal literature is that of grand jury’s loss of power to
            turn on the government and publicly exonerate a suspect. With curtailment of
            the grand jury’s power to accuse without prosecutorial sanction also came
            curtailment of the grand jury’s power to formally and publicly exonerate. This
            loss of power also serves the interests of modern government by allowing a
            prosecutor to resubmit a matter to a new grand jury, a practice which almost
            always can produce a true bill eventually — even against a ham

            One principle example in American history of a political persecution
            that was exposed by the presentments of grand juries is the almost unbelievable
            story of Aaron Burr.[107] After what can only be described as a
            bizarre political career,[108] Burr found himself disliked by both
            the Federalists and the Republicans.[109] The United States Attorney
            for Kentucky, a staunch Federalist aligned with his own party’s strongest rival
            President Jefferson, moved that a grand jury be summoned to consider charges
            against Burr for his alleged attempt to involve the United States in a war with
            Spain.[110] This grand jury from Republican-dominated Kentucky
            returned an “ignoramus bill,” declining to indict Burr on the
            evidence.[111] Going even further, the grand jury issued a written
            declaration directed to the court in which they declared that Burr failed to
            exhibit “any design inimical to the peace and well-being of the

            A second grand jury was indubitably spurred by Jefferson
            himself.[113] The second proceeding convened in Mississippi
            Territory to consider similar treason charges against Burr relating to his
            expedition down the Mississippi River.[114] It was alleged that Burr
            intended to capture New Orleans, a city of nine thousand people protected by a
            thousand United States soldiers, using sixty unarmed men in ten
            boats.[115] The Mississippi grand jury not only declined to indict
            Burr in the affair, but returned presentments which clearly labeled the
            government’s attempted charges as a vindictive prosecution.[116] The
            presentment concluded that “Aaron Burr has not been guilty of any crime or
            misdemeanor against the laws of the United States or of this
            Territory.”[117] Furthermore, the grand jury declared that the
            arrests of Burr and his co-travelers had been made “without warrant, and . . .
            without other lawful authority,”[118] and represented a “grievance
            destructive of personal liberty.”[119] In resounding condemnation,
            the grand jury pronounced its regret that “the enemies of our glorious
            Constitution” had rejoiced at the attempted persecution of Aaron Burr and
            expressed the opinion that such prosecutorial misconduct “must sap the vitals
            of our political existence, and crumble this glorious fabric in the

            The grand jury’s presentment power was thus used not only to accuse
            wrongdoers when government prosecutors refuse to do so, but to publicly
            declare the innocence of a targeted suspect in the very face of
            opposition by the prosecution. Ironically, the Mississippi grand jury was a
            “runaway” by today’s standards. Nevertheless, a grand jury acting in such way
            offered preciously the type of protection envisioned by the Framers when they
            included the institution in the Bill of Rights as a check on the power of the

            Even more enlightening in comparison with the canons of modern criminal
            procedure, the Mississippi grand jury’s presentment included a bold attack
            on the prosecution itself — an occurrence scarcely imaginable today.
            It was thus the grand jury’s power over its presentments, rather than
            its indictments, that made it so fearsome. The effectiveness of early American
            grand juries in ferreting out the shortcomings of public officials “can be
            gauged from the long lists of grand jury presentments” of early
            America.[122] “Very little escaped the attention of the grand
            jurymen,”[123] which even took notice of the failures of town
            councils to provide stocks or a whipping post to punish

          • Dee

            And yet Grand Juries Sit and bring true bills everyday in America .. if the procedures have changed, made more difficult, then that is a challenge if you believe that is the way, not an insurmountable barrier …
            Or are you admitting you deliberately chose a method of bringing world peace that you believed beforehand was impossible to start with?
            Which is it? there is no third choice

          • Sad. You are stuck in a negative feedback loop.

            I am offering one, last, branch before I simply write you off as a paid shill protecting someone else interests (or their own ass). Because quite honestly, I have NEVER seen you agree with ANYTHING these people write about. Ever. They offer a way to brotherhood, and you spit in their face, and against their ideals, every chance you get.

            Why? Quo Bono?

            You fight. You kick. You scream. We even point out scripture from your religion, whom, last I checked, requires Justice and Mercy (Psalm 89:14 for starters). We can even paste the very definition of words, and still you quibble over the meanings of them. You refuse to listen, and simply go “not”. You offer really nothing to back up your opinion, other than OMG OMG THE ILLUMINATI IS COMMING. ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT AHHHHHHH OMG PANIC. ALIENZ ARE DEEEMONZ. THEY ARE ALL DEMONS. YOU ARE SATANTIC BECAUZE YOU ARE A DRAGON AVATAR!@#!@# SCREAM!!! I grew up surrounded by that mentality. I even supported it for most of my lifetime. Likewise, I saw my mother dissolve into full paranoia mode for over a year because of that. She wasted away to almost NOTHING because of it.

            All you offer is is unwarrented superstition and paranoia.

            You are inside your own little world, a religious reality, that has no bearing on the actual reality surrounding you. I question YOUR grip on reality. You are very paranoid. That the Satan boogeyman is under every brush, tree, and rock, ready to pounce on you. Never bind together as a world in peace, that might usher in the reign of the AntiChrist!

            Hint Dee, we are past any “mark” technologically. The scriptures you so cherish, are broken and false. Facial Recognition, DNA recognition, Biometric Scanning, Retna Scanning, etc, will be used for identification in the future of currencies. One could even argue that everyone has a unique electromagnetic signature as well. There will be no “mark”. No Mark, no AntiChrist, no Revelation, and thus, they are False Prophets by the very definition given in the Bible itself. It’s that simple. It’s a story. Take the best of it (Christ’s Law/Paul’s Dissertation on Love), and move forward.

            Quantum Physics is simply the way reality is.

            We are discovering life is EVERYWHERE. Did you miss this story? Doesn’t this EXCITE you? It excites me Dee. It means we are most certainly NOT alone. And I’m curious. I want to know.


            Join humanity damnit. Help protect this little blue dot. IT IS THE ONLY HOME WE HAVE AND WE ARE SHITTING IN IT.

            Now understand the following:

            1.) The Grand Jury System, as it is currently, is a travesty.
            2.) The Grand Jury System, in theory, was supposed to be the auditors of the government and prevent abuses of power.
            3.) The Grand Jury System, can be restored to it’s former self, via propositions and amendments to State Constitutions.
            4.) The Grand Jury System, is the 4th Branch Of Government, per case law. (See link I gave you).
            5.) This has been documented, stated, and told, by numerous former District Attorneys, who actually care about justice and law in this country.
            6.) The Grand Jury has had presentment power stripped from it. It now has to go through government paid DA’s, whom, if told to dump and jump, or lose their job, what do they do?
            7.) You offer examples of foxes guarding the henhouse, and say “See, it works!”.

            Nothing is impossible, if we simply say “no more”, and educate each other about it. We need to be ONE PEOPLE.

            Education is the most powerful weapon against tyranny.

            Stop being the oppressor.

            SHARE YOUR OWN IDEAS HOW TO FIX IT. I think Grand Juries are the way to go. What say you?

          • Dee

            what religion do you think I am? doesn’t matter, you would be wrong.. doesn’t stop me from citing any holy book as a moral source, regardless if I believe in or worship the gods any holy book advocates. Morality and religions are pretty much mutually universal in regards to murder.

            Not.. I have shared .. I think NVCD is the way to go. just last night, and a few time in the past on here I have mentioned this, last night I gave extensive answers and specific examples of how I think it should be done ( and linked to some good music just for shits and giggles). Today I have posted the links to how to arrest war criminals and this is the third thread in which I have done so. How about you post exactly how you go thru a grand jury to move towards an arrest of a war criminal based on actually trying ( it is a basic step in getting to the ICC, so even a total failure to get a grand Jury to hear a case is a necessary step and not a wasted effort) and I have given you the link to the way around that, thru the ICC, if you find that way blocked…Personally I think you deliberately chose a way you think is impossible so you don’t have to do anything but post how what you want to do is impossible. But in truth it is very possible, the details are in the link below.

            And no we don’t need to be one people, or one voice, or be brothers, your success or failure is based solely on your efforts and has nothing to do with me agreeing with you on anything.. you can blame me and my lack of agreement you for your failures if you need yet another excuse or scapegoat but we both know that is about the purest bullshit possible .. we need to respect diversity. And you need to try to get your concerns before a grand jury and establish whether or not it is possible and if not contact the ICC and get the steps you must go thru to actually bring charges http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/PIDS/publications/UICCEng.pdf
            Carl can ask me to not post on his threads if I am too much trouble, or if the truth as see it is too disruptive to his bullshit and posing. The owners of the website can ask me to refrain form posting here altogether if they want and I will honor their request.. it is their website after all.

          • If you are truly serious about that, then I will man up, apologize, and say I’m sorry. I must say, you are almost like a totally different person with this post. It’s shocking.

            I would LOVE to use the ICC. It’s a great idea TOO. Note, too. The Rome Statute for the ICC is pretty damning, and would end a lot of the worlds horseshit. The problem is that we are backing out of it, because the descriptions in jurisdiction hits a bit too close to home with our actions on this “War on Terror”.

            So, it’s already blocked. Look it up on Wikipedia. Israel also backed out of it too, for the same reason.

            Again, I am all for NVCD as well. I am not a violent man. I’m peaceful at heart. I just want peace, tranquility, and a world I can visit with my children in wonder and love. I would like to stop the perpetual war on fricking being human.

            That’s it.

            Now, can we sit down rationally here? I am thinking from a Domestic point of view, not the world court. In our nation, the GJ is the way it is supposed to go. We have two laws already, on the books today. Title 18 USC 2441, and Title 18 USC 3332 that can be used. Article 6, also can include the UN Charter, as it would be an addendum. Same with the Kellogg-Briand pact. These are all legals tools. We can report crimes all day to a District Attorney.

            What I am pointing out, is the fox guarding the henhouse. If we can’t get our own government to follow Amendment 5 of the Bill of Rights, how will the ICC route stand a chance either? That way is actually harder, unless the world demands it against us.

            Fixing the system has to come from the bottom up, grass roots movements demanding a return of a functioning grand jury. Not just for war crimes either, but to hold Law enforcement accountable for events like Ferguson. Same with local city councils, like those that are militarizing the police force.

            We’re not talking about frying the “big fish” right off the bat, you go after the low hanging fruit. They will tweet all the way to the top.

            And yes, we need to unify and be one voice. United We Stand, Divided We Fall.

            Ok, Friends?

          • Dee

            Not, getting a bit exasperated here .. the ICC according to paragraph 10 has jurisdiction if a crime was committed in the territory of a state party, as well as by a nation of a state party (Signatory) . if you think for example President Obama committed a war crime in Iraq, and Iraq is a state party to the Treaty of Rome.. the ICC has jurisdiction. I was assuming that it would not be the USA bringing charges against, as in this example, the USA but rather another country that suffered a war crime on it’s own territory (Surely we bomb more places than Puerto Rico) that happened to be a state party to the ICC that would be bringing a complaint against a national of a state that may or may not be a state party and that is accused of committing a war crime.
            Gaza / Palestine as I understand it is not a State Party and Israel pulled back.. no game no state party .. so yeah nothing there .. however with the long list of many nations posted here on Washington’s Blog that are often alleged to suffer from the predations of the USA, certainly you can find one state party that suffered some significant war crime in their own backyard or garden that may have a beef?
            It would be a step in the right direction , I think, if a reporter or a blogger , especially one that alleges that the US commits innumerable war crimes in many places was to contact the Embassies of some of these suspected victims and find out if or if not and if not why they are going to the ICC with a complaint or if not why not. Or to see exactly if you yourself or somebody else that believes in this approach and wants to poke an eye out for an eye lost , can report that a war crime is thought to have occurred in another country that happens to be a state party and if you ( as a non citizen and non resident victim nation) can ask the ICC to investigate. I read it as you can.
            At worst you might learn something about how international law works and better inform your understanding of why these things don’t happen often and are not what some people think they are and at best you could start your personal collection of arrested world leaders.
            I am merely trying to give you hope and a reason to hand on to a badly flawed ( IMHO) way to achieve world peace. Because if it is true that the “Arrest World Leaders plan” actually has no hope of ever working because of legal technicalities and deficiencies ( as well as my moral complaint that it is just another way to return force and violence for force and violence).. and you still personally insist on World Peace, Then perhaps it is time to look for a more practical way with a proven track record of resolving conflict without adding to the violence.
            I think you should read the NVCD manual closely , if you believe it is all about being nice you are wrong… NVCD is a finely tuned and highly technical moral philosophy designed to drive your opponent mad and force them to act like despicable barbarians and savages and attract the condemnation of the world.
            “The purpose of non violence is to make the violence visible” Gandhi

          • Mmhmm.


            Glad you support war crimes trials. Seems a few of them, were done in absentia. Since the ICC and Hague have case selection bias.

            PS, i know I’m The Singularity.


            Wink. 😉

          • Dee

            Whoa there.. don’t be so quick to assume I support war crimes trials.

            I know the difference between using violence to temporarily stop violence and using love and respect to bring peace. Best you will ever accomplish with violence and force is to momentarily stop somebody else’s violence and force while having to use violence and force yourself .. and that just adds resentment and hate to the people you stopped that will come back and bite you in the butt later.. meanwhile now you are now guilty of using violence and force and maybe somebody is going to think you need some stopping as well.

            Your link to Kuala Lumpur’s War crime trials is exactly what you guys are talking about on here.. a completely do nothing, symbolic , totally BS action that neither stops violence nor brings Peace.. and just makes a joke out of the Peace movement and shows how ineffective the Peace movement is when it uses such tactics.

            Change you life, teach peace, spread respect and empathy, show you can really free people from the cycle of violence by just stopping feeding into revenge and thinking you know best for other people and trying to control their lives.. Hell, half the wars on this planet , now, and in the past, have been folks just trying to be free and out of somebody else’s everyday control .. often otherwise living everyday lives, but in some degree of slavery or servitude, but never bombed or shot at.. just locked up or punished when they did not obey. That is what Gandhi fought in South Africa and India.. That is what King fought in America .. That is the war the GLBT community is winning major victories in right now… yeah it takes a long time.. but it is better than perpetual violence, the parties are better, the lovin’ is better, and you don’t wake up nights screaming.

            think about it
            We win a lot, we just aren’t flashy about it.. look around, pay attention, good people are being peaceful and changing hearts and minds like never before, every week another state legalizes marriage or legalizes pot, or improves police /community relations, all the proposed race relations fixes are “have the conversation” just recently, and almost as good, the people with no big massive protest or without arresting anybody he US Government to choose sanctions and diplomacy over outright violence.. at least for a moment, small steps, not a big win everytime, every “war” has it’s temporary setback, losses , failures, but it is easier to win the next time, or maybe the time after that.. but a lot of folks, on balance, are treating a lot more, and a lot more different kinds of folks better. Even while folks say the nation is ever more polarized and the different sides try to make ever more rules for people they don’t like or approve of. You think human Kindness and Respect , just happens? Just Increases on it’s own? Do you think it is maybe because the Sun is in Aquarius now and not Pisces it is because folks are teaching and living Peace and following the “each one teach one” tactic, and taken some of the violence out of their hearts and are trying to be less of an asshole. Not because some world leader got arrested for bombing someplace.

          • Hehehe. Still don’t see it do you. I’ve been busy.


            What is the singularity?

            Should i give you links to show you why you are noticing it?

            Yes, the age of Aquarius has started. I declared it a month ago. Here, and elsewhere.

          • Dee
          • Dee

            Yeah , you are going to have to spell it out.. I don’t have a clue what you are talking about

          • Dee

            Honest to God , what I thought you were talking about when I add the question to my post directly above was the closest I have come.. those three links and the gooblygawk on them just makes me want to ask if you do ANYTHING in the real world? I don’t mean to be unkind , and I am sure you mean well … but you last post and even mentioning ATS puts you farther over some edge I can’t identify and into a time space continuum I am not at all familiar with.

          • Exactly. Not everyone will leave the ground. Look at the lyrics of the imagine dragons song earlier.

            Don’t you remember the Dr quantum YouTube i gave you almost a month ago? Or did you ignore it?

            I’m the observer. Wink. Look at this video. Notice something?


          • Carl_Herman

            Because clear law is soooo confusing, Dee! Oh my, you’re right! We’d better let the imperial leaders tell us what it means. Are you sending your children to their next war to help peace? Really, are you, to Syria, Ukraine, or wherever else?

            Of course, history teaches us that our leaders always tell us the truth, so it’s safe to trust them!

            Dee: thank you for making it clear you represent the position: facts cannot be known, it’s all open to interpretation. All wars are ok if we interpret them the right way, all 201 US armed attacks since WW2 included.

            Others of us stand for justice under clear law.

          • Dee

            Carl, LOL, you are confusing the fact that I do not believe you know what you are talking about , with we can’t know the facts.. I have asked you time after time to clearly state the path to arresting anybody for war crimes … you have never answered because you don’t know and can’t be bothered to look it up.

            Well, you time is up, all your chances to show you know what the hell you are talking about used up, here is you answer and clear path to enforcing what you say is clear law .. http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/PIDS/publications/UICCEng.pdf

            The address and phone number is in the link along with a detail process to bring charges and what charges can be brought.. you can call the number to get assistance in understanding how you must proceed to do exactly what you say you want to do.
            I think it is the eye for an eye process .. and some, like you consider that justice.. I, and as Gandhi taught think and eye for an eye will make the whole world blind. But each to his own way to work for world peace. I don’t think you will actually do anything, now that I have given you a road map to accomplish exactly what you say you want to do… so prove me wrong.. call the ICC , ask them what they require for you to actually prefer charges and have a war criminal world leader arrested , make a check list of the exact steps you need to take and at least make the minimal effort to take the first step.. walk your talk, hell just take a single step.. and I will quit thinking you are just plain full of bullshit. Personally , if I thought you actually ever had the first intention to ever do anything other than post to a blog and try to pretend you were ever going to do any more than that , you would have looked up and posted the required steps yourself …
            but now you have a clear path to doing what you say you want and a way to prove that the law is clear..
            No more excuses and bullshit.. execute your plan or at least the first steps or find another way to actually work for peace that has a chance of actually happening. prove me wrong about you.

          • Carl_Herman

            Thank you for reminding people I wrote an article on the topic how these arrests would work: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/07/arrests-usukisrael-leaders-end-lie-began-wars-aggression-actually-go.html

            You either lie, Dee, or are so suffering from cognitive dissonance in face of criminal empire that you oppose those calling for lawful arrests to stop Orwellian-unlawful wars. You admit war law states “no war,” admit you’d use force to stop someone from harming your own child if that person refused, but oppose those of us calling for stop/arrests of those war-killing other parents’ children???

            Ok, this was fun, and I’m moving on to other articles. Best wishes to you, as always, Dee.

          • Dee

            That is weak Carl .. very very weak.. it is like everything else you write.. you don’t talk or link to how the ICC would get involved.. You make up a way that you think the ICC might get involved, in this case a petition. Courts don’t decide on if something is a crime by popular vote or petition or file charges because you get 50,000 signatures.. they do it because they have jurisdiction and something is a crime and the ICC investigative arm says there is a case.

            You shotgunned every possible court in the world and did not research a single one of them for what any of them require to act or bring charges. You can mention the ICC in every article you write, but if you don’t explain or educate how it is possible that they might get involved and what is required ..

            Look, Here is the give away.. You mention Treason as a reason to arrest and then you say “( consider Oath Keepers)” Preambled by “Given such arrests would be an absolute reversal of history to-date, this means history provides no precedent to explain how this would happen. Given this lack of precedence, these are possible scenarios” Carl, the correct answer is Impeachment and we have 19 Impeachments including 2 Presidents and a Secretary of War. You didn’t research it .. you said “no precedent” another example of off the cuff clueless BS making it up as you go along.
            You also list “military arrests” as a possibility for the President geeze louise .. total BS Military can’t arrest a civilian , detain the same way a shopkeeper can a shoplifter until the police arrive, but only the senate can impeach and the house try the president. You just make shit up and don’t check facts.
            You list 5 wrong answers and leave out the one correct one.
            It is pathetic.

          • Carl Herman

            Ok, Dee, one more: you’re a liar because an arrest can happen from any of the parties I document when an OBVIOUS crime is in process. You’d arrest/stop an attacker on your child without ever dreaming of the BS you list as hoops to stop war-murders by the millions.

            But go ahead and tell people what to think and what to do. Good luck with that karma.

          • Carl_Herman

            Ok, Dee, one more: you’re a liar because an arrest can happen from any of the parties I document when an OBVIOUS crime is in process. You’d arrest/stop an attacker on your child without ever dreaming of the BS you list as hoops to stop war-murders by the millions.

            But go ahead and tell people what to think and what to do. Good luck with that karma.

          • MCB

            Just for you Dee. 🙂

            “I propose that it shall be no longer malum in se for a citizen to pummel, cowhide, kick, gouge, cut, wound, bruise, maim, burn, club,bastinado, flay, or even lynch a [government] jobholder, and that it shall be malum prohibitum only to the extent that the punishment exceeds the jobholder’s deserts. The amount of this excess, if any, may be determined very conveniently by a petit jury, as other questions of guilt are now determined. The flogged judge, or Congressman, or other jobholder, on being discharged from hospital — or his chief heir, in case he has perished — goes before a grand jury and makes a complaint, and, if a true bill is found, a petit jury is empaneled and all the evidence is put before it. If it decides that the jobholder deserves the punishment inflicted upon him, the citizen who inflicted it is acquitted with honor. If, on the contrary, it decides that this punishment was excessive, then the citizen is adjudged guilty of assault, mayhem, murder, or whatever it is, in a degree apportioned to the difference between what the jobholder deserved and what he got, and punishment for that excess follows in the usual course.” – H. L. Mencken – 1924

          • Dee

            HL Mencken is a pretty famous satirist .. I take it in that spirit.

          • MCB

            What alternative to you propose Dee? I’d like to see your game plan (strategy) and your play calling (tactics). You’re like the Terrell Owens of Washingtons Blog. You’re a “great” wide receiver, but you don’t do anything to help the team and you constantly criticize the QB (I.e Carl Herman). Are you on the team of the people or the team of the “system” or are you a one “man show”?

          • Dee

            One of the great things about Gandhi and King is they provided a way for the common people, the average Joe or Jane to resist, usually simple small acts of resistance/ non participation. Also of great importance to my mind, is the mindset of nonviolence not seeing the “others” as an enemy, Not anting to punish, get even, seek revenge, and to quit using old insults or offenses as a basis to pick sides. The opposite of No Justice/ No peace. If you create Peace, you will create Justice, but you will never get there is you keep demanding justice for every past injustice first.

            The crew on Washington’s blog is very big on keeping track of every injustice and thinking that everything is some deliberate massive conspiracy to inflict maximum pain and suffering.

            I believe a lot of the pain a suffering in the world is from the poor and thoughtless execution of otherwise good intentions .. US Revolutionary War was fought for the highest of ideals and what really and truly opened up a whole new way for humans to see themselves and created totally new relationship between humans and their conscience, and to do it, what most folks don’t know, when the Patriots tarred and feathered the Loyalists and ran them out of town on a rail, the final step was lighting the tar and feathers on fire. Horrible.. but do we highlight and promote Human Dignity or should we allow the British to seek revenge.

            Non Violence and teaching Peace says we forgive ourselves and others for past stupidity and cruelty and teach how our better Angels and incompatible with further stupidity and cruelty and just stop the violence , respect everybody and move on in mutual respect and forgiveness.

            There are some great tools available.. one of my favorite is the affinity group, small local, a great way to learn and teach NVCD and non cooperation with violence .. any NVCD manual has guidelines http://www.actupny.org/documents/CDdocuments/ACTUP_CivilDisobedience.pdf
            is just one, it’s online .

            One of the more basic principles I would like to highlight is setting achievable goals ( I don’t consider arresting the worlds leaders , or even just some of them as an achievable goal) maybe just a personal boycott of some multinational that is heavy into defense contracts or some other injustice .. meeting regularly with your affinity group of less than a dozen friends, you can slowly change your lifestyle and way of thinking to a more classical nonviolent one, slowly add small things that remove support from personal or national violence, spread the word, nobody ever said you could only belong to one affinity group, experienced NVCD teachers , after they refine their own life usually branch out and start another and then another and the members of each successive affinity group also do the same in a multiplying chain reaction. As experience is gained the achievable goals can and do become more ambitious , more external, once the internal is achieved.

            The Quakers have some good anti enlistment, anti draft, pro helping those who walk away from an existing military commitment programs.

            An affinity group I was once involved with, sole focus was , as a group of folks involved in defense jobs, was to provide mutual support, significantly financial, to bridge each member , one at a time, out of the defense industry and into new jobs and careers with a more peaceful focus.. they never did protest anything or march on anyone over any issue, and yet the changed their life and the world, and as they gained experience and unfortunately moved away ( still sending “home” the money and helping with job contacts) , many of them started new affinity groups where they ended up ..

            Other groups get more classically active , doing protests , having a support element to take care of the direct action element’s pets and apartments and bail etc. and rotating who is support, who are legal observers and vibe watcher and who gets to go to jail and have all the fun.

            The UN isn’t perfect, but they do much for peace, if you feel they are not doing as much or as well as you think they should there are ways short of arresting them to encourage them to live closer to the high standards they espouse. I mean, geeze louise how about just not supporting the legitimacy of 1500 year old ( or 30 year old , or 2 year old) grievances to justify the grounds for violence and seeking revenge by one side or the other.

            NVCD and teaching peace and living without damning or condemning somebody is hard. Many of the ultra rich support charities , why not recognize that, honor them for that, and help suggest more or new causes they could support and how they could improve their lifestyle and be cool / cooler by walking their talk.

            imagine what a weekly column on Washington’s Blog with resources and associated conversation topics for affinity groups , affinity group reports about lifestyle changes folks are working on , folks who found employment in non defense/ government/industrial complex jobs and gave up a defense job or moved off the grid and gained experience in a simpler less consumer oriented lifestyle or started a Urban peace garden or found a great book to use as a bookclub / discussion group book, an excellent way to find people to invite into your affinity group after you have learned something about them from the book discussion groups and the discussions.. not everybody is a good candidate, and just inviting folks blind has pitfalls .. but discreetly and individually inviting folks that you have a feel for need not be awkward or pushy or in any bodies face or hurt anybodies feelings by not getting invited

            There is a lot of wisdom out there, real ways real people can change things , make peace more normative , unhitch from and withdraw support from violence and injustice.

            just some quick random thoughts off the top of my head that I know work.

            but none of any of the above is worth a damn so long as you keep seeing the world and the people in it as enemies and friends, oppressed and oppressor, the justified and the unjust.

            folks are just folks and even some of the ones you see as the worst and just doing the best they can and living the best they know how. believe it or not.


          • Dee

            I try to restrict my participation to those articles where Carl requests alternate views ..

            I do march to my own drum and try not to be a prisoner of any orthodoxy

            I am far from a one woman show.. I have been organizing for peace and non violence and working with various groups , or on my own, for a few decades.

            I don’t mind being the critic , sometimes a critic is needed

            Might want to read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias I think it is a problem on Washington’s blog and it may be taking you where I don’t think you want to go.

          • Carl_Herman

            Dee, with all respect:
            1. War law is clear that nations are not allowed armed attacks.
            2. Those who violate it should be stopped by lawful arrest.
            3. Those who see “two sides” as you allege, can present their case in court. Although, as we’ve discussed, I have never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ready any argument the current wars are lawful when war law is actually discussed. All I have on record is unsupported statements like, “9/11, so self-defense!”

            And wtf, Dee: a revolution includes the industrial revolution, the American Revolution, agricultural revolution, etc. You, again, introduce violence as a motive to all of us calling for law enforcement!

            But whatever, Dee. Go ahead and argue against the use of law to stop unlawful Wars of Aggression. Good luck with that.

          • Dee

            What law empowers the individual citizen to arrest anybody under the terms of any treaty? If you do not have a warrant issued by a court, and international courts do not give warrants to individual citizens to arrest anybody, and you are not a sworn officer of the law as a US Citizen, you have to face the full weight of charges interfering with another’s liberty.. could be false arrest or false imprisonment, could be kidnapping.
            What due process, other than your own will, do you propose folks follow in making these arrests.
            You blithely advocate folks arrest the people you do not like or that do not do things you approve of, but you make no mention of what due process or human rights guarantees, if any, you, or your minions might follow.. if you have any principles other than your own will and opinion regarding arresting folks , you really need to make that clear. And it would be nice if you mentioned where folks go to get a warrant.
            You don’t, because these key elements do not exist in the real world.. that leaves your self defined righteous violence and self proclaimed power to make the rules and rule the world by rules you make.

          • Carl_Herman

            You’re such the liar for War Crimes, Dee. I’ve already addressed this, as you know: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/07/arrests-usukisrael-leaders-end-lie-began-wars-aggression-actually-go.html

            Links are in the above article of this excerpt:

            “Given such arrests would be an absolute reversal of history to-date, this means history provides no precedent to explain how this would happen. Given this lack of precedence, these are possible scenarios:

            1. Federal law arrests for treason and/or other unlawful orders violating the US Constitution (consider Oath Keepers).

            2. State arrests for murder of residents under the unlawful lies to send residents to their deaths via unlawful Wars of Aggression.

            3. Military arrests for unlawful orders, Wars of Aggression.

            4. International Criminal Court (under similar control as the UN to avoid the biggest War Crimes).

            5. Citizen’s arrest.”

          • That law is Title 18 USC 3332. Article 6 includes treaties. Thus any rights in treaties, are protected. Title 18 USC Chapter 13 should take care of the rest.

            Common Law Peoples Grand Juries are the way.

      • Southernfink

        Revolutions have a far better chance of being successful when the people are joined by for instance members of the security forces.

        I’m all for non violence, but doubt anyone could stand by idly when their nearest and dearest are being hurt.

        The main thing — the system is failing, war crimes are still been committed meaning that war criminals need to be apprehended but there is no one held accountable.

        Remember – Along came the champion of civil right’s, the master of legal speak, well known for having taught courses in due process, racism, and constitutional law, and while he had a chance to correct the wrong’s from his predecessor, he did no such thing, and soon proved even worse than his predecessor.

        Tony Blair also makes an excellent example, lying about the reasons for going to war and then joining the very industry that made such a tidy profit, considering his unreliability when it comes to providing good judgement — It was extremely odd that he was hired as an adviser to one of the largest defense contractors in the world, in his first year out of office he earned a whopping 50 million.

        Than look at current NATO head Rasmussen, as Danish PM he also bought into mantra of lies concerning WMD in Iraq and even had someone locked up for exposing those lies, currently he has no doubt that Russia is to blame for the entire situation in Ukraine, while mind you no solid and independently verifiable evidence has been presented.

        Economic sanctions against Russia were always on the cards, it’s all about protecting US interests, the Petrol dollar.

        And remember the August eight agreement, the findings of the investigation into the downing of the passenger plane in Ukraine on July seventeen might never be made public, one of the suspects has been given veto power to prevent that.

        • Dee

          Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. William Pitt
          Seems to be a lot of folks here on Washington’s Blog that feel violence in the name of peace is a necessity when they advocate it, and criminal when anybody else does it.
          Must be good for clicks and fans of the simple solution.

          • Carl_Herman

            Dee, you’re going Orwellian on us: arrests are the lawful action to stop crime.

            And we all notice, Dee, your violent accusation against those who simply ask clear and obvious law used to stop war-murder. You introduce the idea of “violence,” not those seeking to stop violence.

            We notice, Dee.

          • Dee

            Carl if you can arrest folks without violating their human rights or using violence, more power to you. But what if they tell you they do not wish to be arrested? What if they tell you they do not consent to being detained or tried? will you respect that? Or will you use force?
            In any conventional or useful meaning of “arrest”, force and coercion is implied. If you have some magic way to do this without force or coercion why not just ask the world leaders and UN Leaders to just turn themselves in. And since none of these treaties empower the individual to act on behalf of any treaty as an enforce agent, under color of what authority do you plan on acting?
            Carl what words would you use to express the imposition of your will on others?

          • Carl_Herman

            Dee: you blame the victims of War Crimes (among many areas of crime centering in war and money) rather than supporting ending them through use of law.

            In this case of war law, perhaps 95% of humans would agree they want law to prevent governments from using armed attacks except under narrow cases of self-defense. When “leaders” murder by the millions (the US has war-murdered ~30 million since WW2), I support law to end their ongoing murders and then allowing their voice in court for whatever they have to say.

            Liar, Dee: this isn’t “my will,” but the will of again, ~95% to not have war-murders.

            Liar, Dee: war-murders have multiple laws preventing them, from individuals upholding the US Constitution for citizen arrests, to federal agents enforcing US law against War Crimes and torture, to state law for lying state residents to their war-murders.

            And to make this more clear, Dee: if the attacker of your own child tells you they do not wish to be arrested, detained, tried, will you respect that?

            Again, I’ve invested enough time to help clarify your position versus the one I present. Good luck with your future.

          • Dee

            Since you believe this to be such a slam dunk of a sure thing on actually getting a law passed that you, or any citizen, could actually use to arrest folks involved in war crimes or even just a war in general.. then why don’t you stop pretending one already exists and actually work to pass such a law. That might actually prove to be useful and do more than pretend.

          • Southernfink

            I have read and recommend reading Revolution Matchstick.

            Our politicians control the largest, most well funded military in the world. The corporations employ private mercenaries. And, while there are many noble reasons to advocate that the people use nonviolent struggle, the most strategic one is this: by using violent means, we will have chosen the very type of struggle in which our opponents excel. Their superiority is unquestionable at this time.

            ~ Rivera Sun


      • RealityAlwaysBites

        Pacifists make great slaves, been that way throughout history and nothing is different today. The psychopaths rule by force and the wimps work in the sweatshops.

        • Dee

          Hey.. this is a fight between people who believe in Peace.. if you are in favor of fighting , you can’t fight in here.

          • Carl_Herman

            What, Dee? Violently interposing your terminology of “fight” and imposing your personal will when you have no authority “here”?

            There is no fight in calling for rule of law. You don’t join us, clearly, in calling for rule of law to end Wars of Aggression.

    • Gina

      Maybe not from patriots, even if real ones, but from people who are just really concerned about humanity. Just some straightforward mindset.

      There are children, youths & adults slaughtered, ripped open, … Just let’s imagine the unbearable pain. But mankind lives with these realities since millennia. Homo sapiens is some pervert who uses his/her head as a hat rack.

      • Southernfink

        The people really need all the help they can get, when some of that help comes from a cog within the machine, all the better and that help should be welcomed, like the whistle blowers have shown, not all the cog’s are content with their superiors.

        We need to provide a good reason to make them want to switch sides.

        We all know that war crimes have been committed, there’s no denying that, to me it makes perfect sense that those who ordered these in the first place, should be held accountable and brought to justice.

        Which ironically is a far better deal than for example the targeted drone strikes, where no form of due process was offered to the intended victims, drones strikes as you might recall never even required the verification of the intended target, one of the method’s used was homing in on sim card signals and homing devices placed nearby, and here is thing, what threat was responded to, far away on another continent.

        Another way of putting this, since they have completely and utterly failed to provide logical and valid reasons explaining their own actions, they must now be held accountable.

        Around the world, our democratically elected representatives are doing darn lousy job for which they had been hired to do, somehow their narrative had already been decided by Washington, the so called coalition of the willing was one example where many governments simply followed directions from Washington (MSM included)

        Another example remember how President Morales plane was forced to redirect after it was refused airspace, the willing puppets that they are simply obeyed instructions.

        • Gina

          A question: MSM = mainstream media?

          • Southernfink

            Yup aka Mass Spin Manipulation.