The following is my paper for the Claremont Colleges’ conference,
Seizing an Alternative Toward an Ecological Civilization, with
open registration to the public on June 4-7, 2015.
Paper title:
‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ political collapse: Seizing an alternative
to OBVIOUS unlawful wars, bankster looting, lying corporate media
I’ve divided the paper into sections:
Recognizing The Emperor’s New Clothes as THE STORY of today (1 of 7)
Obviously unlawful US/UK wars of the present (2 of 7)
Obviously unlawful Israel wars on Gaza (3 of 7)
War lies to hide obviously unlawful wars: propaganda as usual (4 of 7)
Bankster looting: fundamental fraud that “debt” is “money” (5 of 7)
Lying corporate media: required propaganda trying to hide naked empire (6 of 7)
Integrity for the whole truth, and nothing but the truth (7 of 7)
This section is: Obviously unlawful US/UK wars of the present (2 of 7)
**
US/UK/Israel unlawful wars all started with lies:
“No treaty, however much it may be to the advantage of all,
however tightly it may be worded, can provide absolute security against
the risks of deception and evasion.” – President Kennedy, June 10, 1963
Unlawful Wars of Aggression: The
US/UK/Israel “official story” is that current wars are lawful because they are “self-defense.” The
Emperor’s New Clothes fact
here is that “self-defense” means something quite narrow and specific
in war law, and US/UK/Israel armed attacks on so many nations in current
and past wars are not even close to the definition of “self-defense.”
Addressing three nations and several wars again seems ambitious for
one academic paper, and again, these are all simple variations of one
method:
- Ignore war law.
- Lie to blame the victim and claim “self-defense.”
- “Officials” and corporate media never state the Emperor’s New Clothes simple and obvious facts of war law and war lies.
Proving unlawful wars with massive deception is easier when the scope is broadened to see the same elements in three cases.
Importantly, a nation can use military, police, and civilians in
self-defense from any attack upon the nation. This is similar to the
legal definition of “self-defense” for you or I walking down the street:
we cannot attack anyone unless either under attack or imminent threat.
And, if under attack, we can use any reasonable force in self-defense,
including lethal.
Two world wars begat two treaties to end nations’ armed attacks forever. They are crystal-clear in content and context:
- Kellogg-Briand Pact (General treaty for renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy as official title)
- United Nations Charter.
Both are listed in the US State Department’s annual publication,
Treaties in Force (2013 edition pages 466 and 493).
Article Six of the US Constitution defines a treaty as US “supreme Law of the Land;” meaning that US policy may only complement an active treaty, and
never violate it.
This is important because
all of us with Oaths to the US Constitution are
sworn to honorably refuse all unlawful war orders; military officers
are sworn to arrest those who issue them. Indeed, we suffer criminal
dishonor if we obey orders for armed attack when they are not
“self-defense,” and family dishonor to so easily reject the legal
victory won from all our families’ sacrifices through two world wars.
Treaty 1. Kellogg-Briand: General treaty for renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy:
The
legal term renounce means to surrender access; that is, to remove that which is renounced as lawful option. This
active treaty (page 466 “Renunciation of War”), usually referenced as the
Kellogg-Briand Pact, states:
“ARTICLE I
The High Contracting Parties solemly declare in the names of their
respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution
of international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of
national policy in their relations with one another.
ARTICLE II
The High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement or solution
of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin
they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by
pacific means.”
Treaty 2. United Nations Charter:
It’s helpful to understand what the UN is not. The only area of legal
authority of the UN is security/use of force; all other areas are
advise for individual nation’s legislature’s consideration. The UN is
not global government. It is a global agreement to end wars of choice
outside of a very narrow legal definition of national self-defense
against another nation’s armed attack.
The
preamble of the United Nations includes
to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war… to establish
conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising
from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained,
and… to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of
methods, that armed force shall not be used…”
The
UN purpose includes: “To
maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take
effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats
to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other
breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in
conformity with the principles of justice and international law,
adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which
might lead to a breach of the peace…”
Article 2:
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful
means in such a manner that international peace and security, and
justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from
the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or
political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent
with the Purposes of the United Nations.
5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter…
Article 24:
In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations,
its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for
the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in
carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council
acts on their behalf.
Article 25: The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and
carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the
present Charter.
Article 33:
- The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to
endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall,
first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation,
conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional
agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
- The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.
Article 37: Should the parties to a dispute of the nature referred to
in Article 33 fail to settle it by the means indicated in that Article,
they shall refer it to the Security Council.
Article 39: The Security Council shall determine the existence of any
threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and
shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in
accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international
peace and security.
Article 40: In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the
Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon
the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties
concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary
or desirable.
Article 51: Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent
right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs
against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has
taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the judicial branch of the UN. Their
definition of “armed attack” is by a nation’s government. Because the leadership of the
CIA and FBI both reported that
they had no evidence the Afghan government had any role in the 9/11
terrorism, the US is unable to claim Article 51 protection for military
action in Afghanistan (or
Iraq,
Syria,
Ukraine, Iran [
here,
here,
here],
Russia, or claims about
ISIS or
Khorasans).
The legal classification of what happened on 9/11 is an act of
terrorism, a criminal act, not an armed attack by another nation’s
government.
The US use of force oversees could be a legal application of Article
51 if, and only if, the US could meet the burden of proof of an imminent
threat that was not being responded to by the Security Council. To
date, the US has not made such an argument.
American Daniel Webster helped create the
legal definition of national self-defense in
the Caroline Affair as “necessity of that self-defence is instant,
overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for
deliberation.” The US attack on Afghanistan came nearly a month after
the 9/11 terrorism. Article 51 only allows self-defense until the
Security Council takes action; which they did in two Resolutions
beginning the day after 9/11 (
1368 and
1373) claiming jurisdiction in the matter.
In conclusion, unless a nation can justify its military use as
self-defense from armed attack from a nation’s government that is
“instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment
for deliberation,” all other acts of war are unlawful. The legal
definition of “self-defense” ends when the attack terminates. In
general legal definition,
no party is allowed use of force under the justification of “self-defense” if the law can be applied for redress and remedy.
Another area to clarify is the
US 1973 War Powers Act (WPA).
The authorization by Congress for US presidential discretion for military action in
Afghanistan and
Iraq references
WPA. This act, in response to the Vietnam War, reframes the Founders’
intent of keeping the power of war in the hands of Congress. It also
expressly limits the president to act within US treaty obligations; the
principle treaty of use of war being the UN Charter.
This means that presidential authority as commander-in-chief must
always remain within the limitations of the UN Charter to be lawful
orders. It’s not enough for Congress to authorize use of force; that
force must always and only be within the narrow legal definition of
self-defense clearly explained in the UN Charter. Of course, we can
anticipate that if a government wanted to engage in unlawful war today,
they would construct their propaganda to sell the war as “defensive.”
The future of humanity to be safe from the scourge of war is therefore
dependent upon our collective ability to discern lawful defensive wars
from unlawful Wars of Aggression covered in
BS–
Emperor’s New Clothes claims of self-defense.
Governments have been vicious killers over the last 100 years, using “self-defense” to justify their wars. The US has
started 201 foreign armed attacks since WW2, causing the world’s peoples to conclude in polling that the US is indeed #1 as the
most threatening nation to world peace. These US-started armed attacks have
killed ~30 million and counting;
90% of these deaths are innocent children, the elderly and ordinary working civilian women and men. These US armed attacks have
war-murdered more than Hitler’s Nazis, and continue a
long history of lie-began US Wars of Aggression.
The
most decorated US Marine general in his day warned all Americans of this fact of lie-started wars, and W. Bush’s Senior Advisor and Deputy Chief of Staff,
Karl Rove, chided Pulitzer-winning journalist, Ron Suskind, that government will continue with such actions to “create our own reality” no matter what anyone else might say.
The first round of US current wars, the attack of Afghanistan on
October 7, 2001, continues this history as a deliberate act of unlawful
war, not defense that was “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice
of means, and no moment for deliberation.” The burden of proof the US
would have to provide is imminent threat of another attack in order to
justify self-defense. US Ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, in his
letter to the UN Security Council invoking
Article 51 for the attack upon Afghanistan mentions only “ongoing
threat;” which does not satisfy this burden of proof.
Article 51 requires self-defensive war coming from an attack by a
nation’s government, which the CIA and FBI refute in the case of the
Afghan government with the terrorism on 9/11. Self-defense ends when the
attack ends. The US war began four weeks after 9/11 ended; making the
US war one of choice and not defense. Article 51 ends self-defense
claims when the UN Security Council acts. Resolution 1373 provides clear
language of international cooperation and justice under the law, with
no authorization of force.
This evidence doesn’t require the light of the UN Charter’s spirit of
its laws, but I’ll add it: humanity rejected war as a policy option and
requires nations to cooperate for justice under that law. The US has
instead embraced and still embraces war with its outcomes of death,
misery, poverty, and fear expressly against the wishes of humanity and
the majority of Americans. These acts are clearly unlawful and should be
refused and stopped by all men and women in military, government and
law enforcement.
Some war liars argue that
UN Security Council Resolution 687 from
1991 authorizes resumption of force from the previous Gulf War. This
resolution declared a formal cease-fire; which means exactly what it
says: stop the use of force. The resolution was declared by UNSC and
held in their jurisdiction; that is, no individual nation has authority
to supersede UNSC’s power to continue or change the status of the
cease-fire. The idea that the US and/or UK can authorize use of force
under a UNSC cease-fire is as criminal as your neighbor shooting one of
your family members and claiming that because police have authority to
shoot dangerous people he can do it.
The categories of crime for armed attacks outside US treaty limits of law are:
- Wars of Aggression (the worst crime a nation can commit),
- Treason for lying to US military, ordering unlawful attack and invasions of foreign lands, and causing thousands of US military deaths.
All 27 UK Foreign Affairs Department attorneys concluded Iraq war is unlawful: I wrote 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 follows the
Dutch government’s recent unanimous report and
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan’s clear statements.
“This stunning information was disclosed at the UK Chilcot inquiry by the
testimony of Foreign Affairs leading legal advisor, Sir Michael Wood,
who added that the reply from Prime Minister Tony Blair’s office to his
legal department’s professional work was chastisement for putting their
unanimous legal opinion in writing.
“
Sir Michael testified that
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw preferred to take the legal position that
the laws governing war were vague and open to broad interpretation: “He
took the view that I was being very dogmatic and that international law
was pretty vague and that he wasn’t used to people taking such a firm
position.”
“UK Attorney General Lord Goldsmith testified he “changed his mind”
against the unanimous legal opinion of all 27 of the Foreign Office
attorneys to agree with the US legal argument that UN Security Council
Resolution
1441 authorized use of force at the discretion of any nation’s choice. This
testimony is also criminally damning: arguing that an individual nation
has the right to choose war violates the purpose, letter and spirit of
the UN Charter, as well as violates 1441 that reaffirms jurisdiction of
the Security Council in governance of the issue. This Orwellian argument
contradicts the express purpose of the Charter to prevent individual
nations from engaging in wars.
“Moreover, the US and UK “legal argument” is in further Orwellian
opposition to their UN Ambassadors’ statements when 1441 was passed that
this
did not authorize any use of force:
“
John Negroponte, US Ambassador to the UN:
[T]his resolution contains no “hidden triggers” and no
“automaticity” with respect to the use of force. If there is a further
Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member
State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required
in paragraph 12.
“
Sir Jeremy Greenstock, UK Ambassador to the UN:
We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about
“automaticity” and “hidden triggers” — the concern that on a decision
so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision
so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let
me be equally clear in response… There is no “automaticity” in this
resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament
obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as
required in paragraph 12.
“The Chilcot inquiry was initiated from public outrage against UK
participation in the Iraq War, with public opinion having to engage a
second time to
force hearings to become public rather
than closed and secret. The hearings were not authorized to consider
criminal charges, which is the next battle for UK public opinion.”
The UN Charter is the principle law to end wars; designed by the US
to produce that result. That said, West Point Grads Against the War
have
further legal arguments of
all the violations of war from US attack and invasions of Afghanistan
and Iraq, including further analysis of the UN Charter and expert
supporting testimony. Another resource for documentation and analysis is
David Swanson’s
War is a Crime. Ironically,
Americans would never allow a favorite sport such as baseball or football to be similarly destroyed by such
Emperor’s New Clothes lies to those rules/laws.
Lawful war analysis: Negroponte’s letter invokes a legal
Charter Article of self-defense in contrast with the loss of over 3,000
lives on 9/11. The letter portends legal evidence of al-Qaeda’s “central
role” in the attacks and claims military response is appropriate
because of al-Qaeda’s ongoing threat and continued training of
terrorists. This reasoning argues for a reinterpretation of self-defense
to include pre-emptive attack while lying in omission that such an
argument is tacit agreement of current action being outside the law.
The US Army’s
official law handbook provides an excellent historical and legal summary of when wars are lawful self-defense and unlawful
War of Aggression in a seven-page Chapter One.
Importantly, after accurately defining “self-defense” in war, the
JAG authors/attorneys explicitly state on page 6 that
war
is illegal unless a nation is under attack from another nation’s
government, or can provide evidence of imminent threat of such attack:
“Anticipatory self-defense, whether labeled anticipatory or preemptive, must be distinguished from preventive self-defense. Preventive self-defense—employed to counter non-imminent threats—is illegal under international law.”
However, despite the US Army’s law handbook’s accurate disclosure of
the legal meaning of “self-defense” in war, they then ignore this
meaning to claim “self-defense” as a lawful reason for US wars without
further explanation (
details here).
President George Washington’s Farewell Address, the culmination of his 45 years of political experience,
warned of the primary threat to America as
“the impostures of pretended patriotism” from people within our own
government who would destroy Constitutional limits in order to obtain
tyrannical power:
“All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations
and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real
design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation
and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this
fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency.”
Young Abraham Lincoln wrote eloquently to
defend the US Constitution from unlawful tyrants within our own government. In Congress, he spoke powerfully and truthfully that the
President’s claims for armed attack and invasion of a foreign country were lies.
Although war-mongers slurred Lincoln’s name at the time, history proved
him correct in asserting the President of the US was a war-mongering
liar:
“I carefully examined the President’s messages, to ascertain what
he himself had said and proved upon the point. The result of this
examination was to make the impression, that taking for true, all the
President states as facts, he falls far short of proving his
justification; and that the President would have gone farther with his
proof, if it had not been for the small matter, that the truth would not
permit him… Now I propose to try to show, that the whole of this, —
issue and evidence — is, from beginning to end, the sheerest deception.”
Lincoln also wrote that “pre-emptive” wars were lies, and “
war at pleasure.”
**
Note: I make all factual assertions as a National Board Certified Teacher
of US Government, Economics, and History, with all economics factual
claims receiving zero refutation since I began writing in 2008 among Advanced Placement Macroeconomics teachers on our discussion board, public audiences of these articles, and international conferences.
I invite readers to empower their civic voices with the strongest
comprehensive facts most important to building a brighter future. I
challenge professionals, academics, and citizens to add their voices for
the benefit of all Earth’s inhabitants.
Carl Herman is a National Board Certified Teacher of US Government,
Economics, and History; also credentialed in Mathematics. He worked with
both US political parties over 18 years and two UN Summits with the
citizen’s lobby,
RESULTS, for US domestic and foreign policy to end poverty. He can be reached at
Carl_Herman@post.harvard.edu
