Hillary has repeatedly said: “We should also work with the coalition and the neighbors to impose no-fly zones that will stop Assad from slaughtering civilians and the opposition from the air. Opposition forceson the ground, with material support from the coalition, could then help create safe areas where Syrians could remain in the country, rather than fleeing toward Europe.”
This would mean that U.S. fighter-jets and missiles would be shooting down the fighter-jets and missiles of the Syrian government over Syria, and would also be shooting down those of Russia. The Syrian government invited Russia in, as its protector; the U.S. is no protector but an invader against Syria’s legitimate government, the Ba’athist government, led by Bashar al-Assad. The CIA has been trying ever since 1949 to overthrow Syria’s Ba’athist government — the only remaining non-sectarian government in the Middle East other than the current Egyptian government. The U.S. supports Jihadists who demand Sharia law, and they are trying to overthrow and replace Syria’s institutionally secular government. For the U.S. to impose a no-fly zone anywhere in Syria would mean that the U.S. would be at war against Russia over Syria’s skies.
Whichever side loses that conventional air-war would then have to choose whether to surrender, or instead to use nuclear weapons against the other side’s homeland, in order for it to avoid surrendering. That’s nuclear war between Russia and the United States.
Would Putin surrender? Would Hillary? Would neither? If neither does, then nuclear war will be the result.
Here are the two most extensive occasions in which Hillary has stated her position on this:
We should also work with the coalition and the neighbors to impose no-fly zones that will stop Assad from slaughtering civilians and the opposition from the air. Opposition forces on the ground, with material support from the coalition, could then help create safe areas where Syrians could remain in the country, rather than fleeing toward Europe.
This combined approach would help enable the opposition to retake the remaining stretch of the Turkish border from ISIS, choking off its supply lines. It would also give us new leverage in the diplomatic process that Secretary Kerry is pursuing. …
QUESTION: When you were secretary of state, you tended to agree a great deal with the then-Secretary of Defense Bob Gates. Gates was opposed to a no-fly zone in Syria; thought it was an act of war that was risky and dangerous. This seems to me the major difference right now between what the president — what Obama’s administration is doing and what you’re proposing.
Do you not — why do you disagree with Bob Gates on this?
CLINTON: Well, I — I believe that the no-fly zone is merited and can be implemented, again, in a coalition, not an American-only no-fly zone. I fully respect Bob and his knowledge about the difficulties of implementing a no-fly zone. But if you look at where we are right now, we have to try to clear the air of the bombing attacks that are still being carried out to a limited extent by the Syrian military, now supplemented by the Russian air force.
And I think we have a chance to do that now. We have a no-fly zone over northern Iraq for years to protect the Kurds. And it proved to be successful, not easy — it never is — but I think now is the time for us to revisit those plans.
I also believe, as I said in the speech, that if we begin the conversation about a no-fly zone, something that, you know, Turkey discussed with me back when I was secretary of state in 2012, it will confront a lot of our partners in the region and beyond about what they’re going to do. And it can give us leverage in the discussions that Secretary Kerry is carrying on right now.
So I see it as both a strategic opportunity on the ground, and an opportunity for leverage in the peace negotiations. …
QUESTION: Jim Ziren (ph), Madam Secretary. Hi. Back to the no- fly zone. are you advocating a no-fly zone over the entire country or a partial no-fly zone over an enclave where refugees might find a safe haven? And in the event of either, do you foresee see you might be potentially provoking the Russians?
CLINTON: I am advocating the second, a no-fly zone principally over northern Syria close to the Turkish (ph) border, cutting off the supply lines, trying to provide some safe refuges for refugees so they don’t have to leave Syria, creating a safe space away from the barrel bombs and the other bombardments by the Syrians. And I would certainly expect to and hope to work with the Russians to be able to do that. [She expects Putin to join America’s bombing of Syria’s government and troops and shooting-down of Russia’s planes in Syria, but no question was raised about this.] …
To have a swath of territory that could be a safe zone … for Syrians so they wouldn’t have to leave but also for humanitarian relief, … would give us this extra leverage that I’m looking for in the diplomatic pursuits with Russia with respect to the political outcome in Syria.
Bernie Sanders’s response to that was: “I worry too much that Secretary Clinton is too much into regime change and a little bit too aggressive without knowing what the unintended consequences might be.” He didn’t mention nuclear war as one of them.
Hillary Clinton has never been asked “What would you do if Russia refuses to stop its flights in Syria?” Donald Trump has said nothing about the proposal for a no-fly zone (other than “I want to sit back and see what happens”), because most Americans support that idea, and he’s not bright enough to take her on about it and ask her that question. Probably, if he were supportive of it, he’d have said so — in which case it wouldn’t still be an issue in this election. Trump muffed his chance — which he has had on several occasions. But clearly he, unlike her, has not committed himself on this matter.
Hillary Clinton is obviously convinced that the U.S. would win a nuclear war against Russia. The question for voters is whether they’re willing to bet their lives that she is correct about that, and that even if the U.S. ‘wins’, only Russia and not also the U.S. (and the world) would be destroyed if the U.S. nuclear-attacks Russia.
Every other issue in this election pales by comparison to the no-fly-zone issue, which is virtually ignored, in favor of issues that are trivial by comparison. But a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for nuclear war against Russia, regardless of whether or not the voters know this. And a vote for Trump is a vote for the unknown. Could the unknown be even worse than Hillary Clinton? If so, would it be so only in relatively trivial ways?
This election should be about Hillary Clinton, not about Donald Trump.
Three hours of power-packed talk radio covering top news stories of the week from 21WIRE and across the media spectrum, featuring in-depth analysis and long-form interviews with guests from around the world – covering some of the most controversial topics out there in the public domain – all guaranteed to stimulate your mind.
Strap yourselves in and lower the blast shield — this is your brave new world…
War law: Crystal-clear to see in letter and intent, the easiest way for YOU to help end dictatorial US rogue state empire by demanding arrests for OBVIOUS lie-started Wars of Aggression. Your choice is YES or NO for war, not Trump or Clinton for only war
“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
“Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” ~ 1st Amendment to the US Constitution
Perhaps the widest gap between what is lawful and what our .01% oligarchs do is in the ongoing armed attacks on other nations. This is also perhaps the most important policy measured by human lives, resources, and money.
Because war law is so easy to understand in crystal-clear letter and intent, supported by two treaties that the US Constitution requires as our “supreme law,” and US military are required by Oath and training to refuse unlawful orders (with officers required to arrest those who issue them), perhaps also this is a leverage point for everyday people to:
Accurately and confidently know the law.
Demand arrests of Left and Right US “leaders” because the wars are not even close to lawful.
Cause a lawful end to the dictatorial US rogue state.
War law is just as easy to understand as “stop sign law” when driving, and far easier than most sports laws, such as when a football punt is or is not legal, or baseball’s “infield fly” rule. Because everyday people care enough to know traffic law and sports rules, the idea of knowing war law can be accomplished by refreshing what you’ve already learned by reading this article (and confirming its accuracy as needed).
As you know from education and your real-world life, laws are simply rules.
A well-designed rule helps produce a desired result, such as traffic law to make driving as safe and efficient as possible, and baseball rules to create a fair and fun cooperative competition/game. For examples, in the US we all drive on the right side of the road, and in baseball the team batting gets three outs before the other team has their chance at bat.
Law is meant to be crystal-clear so that all participants can best accomplish an agreed-upon result. A law that is unclear or unhelpful for the result/game must be redesigned or removed, while clear and helpful laws are appreciated and enforced (law enforcement and umpires in our two examples). Our examples in driving and baseball are indeed clear rules that everyone knows and plays by. Important to our application for war law, if a baseball team pretended they could have four outs, this deception would be recognized and immediately stopped by the involved community’s strong understanding of the law (including the fans who would strongly voice this obvious violation).
War law, as we’re about to document and prove, is clear and helpful for the outcome of denying military armed attack as a foreign policy. This is an outcome 95%+ of humanity agree is desirable, especially after all our families’ awful sacrifices through two world wars.
Conversely, war-mongers for empire will do their best to be silent about war law, lie that it’s so unclear that any dictatorial claim of “self-defense” is valid, and take every evasive maneuver imaginable for the public (especially military and law enforcement) to never understand war law and/or never recognize how US wars are Orwellian unlawful.
To give you the punch line now for clarity of what war law states, and without disagreement our colleagues and I are aware of from anyone who points to the law with explanation:
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.
That’s the letter of the law. The intent is soooo strongly worded in both relevant treaties, as you’ll see, and is simply to end the scourge of wars chosen by governments as foreign policy (in historical context of empires looting the world for resources: natural and human).
Our condition today is of OBVIOUSLY unlawful Wars of Aggression (and started with lies known to false as they were told), as the facts to follow clearly demonstrate for anyone caring to look and apply basic high school-level of education already learned.
Importantly, Left and Right “leaders” and corporate media, including Clinton and Trump, will never ever ever ever ever remind us that war is illegal, with current wars in Orwellian opposition.
The appropriate “vote” of We the People for this presidential election is “No” for more illegal war, and “Yes” to stop the wars and arrest those who orchestrated them. Without public demand, these illegal wars will only continue.
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 Clothesfact 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).
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 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.
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.”
So, in the most clear framing of a rule as possible, the first two parts of the treaty state “never war” and “always peace” to resolve conflicts.
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…”
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.
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 Clothesclaims of self-defense.
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:
“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:
[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.
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.
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.”
“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.”
Those of us working to end these illegal Wars of Aggression have found zero refutations of our documentation that address war law. All we’ve ever found are denial and unsubstantiated claims of “self-defense” while having to lie about the legal limits in that term.
Note: other sections of that paper may be useful that just as clearly demonstrate Israel’s illegal war on Gaza, criminally complicit corporate media to “cover” these crimes, all “reasons” for these wars were known to be false as they were told, and the fundamental fraud of creating what is used for money as debt.
2. Demand arrests of Left and Right US “leaders” because the wars are not even close to lawful
Therefore, We the People have an obvious solution: lawful arrests of .01% “leaders” for the most egregious crimes centering in war and lies to start them.
This is a 1st Amendment responsibility to maintain our constitutional republic under law rather than what we’ve become with war: “leaders” dictating/saying what we can do completely removed from limitations of the law. Left and Right .01% “leaders” completely violate the rules, and only from public ignorance with corporate media propaganda.
Let’s consider an analogy that is fitting, and would be obvious:
George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Barack Obama drive a military tank together as their “job.” However, these facts are the problems:
They drive it on the wrong side of public freeways.
Obama drives the tank intentionally over cars, Cheney mans the cannon to blast targets of choice, and W. Bush is on the turret firing a machine gun.
This has been happening since 2002 with millions killed, tens of millions harmed, and with trillions of dollars in damage (ok, that’s the real war’s cost and not possible with one tank, but work with me on this analogy).
Their “official reasons” why this is legal:
In emergencies, sometimes drivers have to violate the law.
Mrs. Cheney, based on our best intelligence, is pregnant and about to deliver.
The three people in the tank make a carpool, and are given additional driving privileges.
The tank has white decals stating it’s a zero-emissions vehicle.
Cheney’s shelling of a wedding is “pretty well confirmed” as an intelligent choice to take out several terrorist families in one strike, and “well worth the cost.”
Of course, anyone caring to refute these “official reasons” in writing would compose an essay similar to the one you’re reading to refute all claims with sufficient documentation that their actions are not even close to lawful, with all “reasons” known to be lies as they are told. The short version:
Bush, Cheney, and Obama create an illegal emergency, and are not responding to one.
Mrs. Cheney is 74 years old, with no evidence of pregnancy, and with near-certain biological impossibility to be pregnant.
A tank is not allowed on a freeway, driving on the wrong side of the freeway is illegal, and that three people make a carpool is not relevant.
White decals would not apply to a tank, and this point is not relevant to the crime of mass-murder and injuries, with trillions in damages.
All three men commit mass-murder in Orwellian contradiction to law, with their “reasons” all known lies and ridiculous attempts to deflect from OBVIOUS murder.
The tragic-comedy of our analogy is that the damages from lie-started and illegal Wars of Aggression are exponentially worse. The actual categories of crime include:
Likely treason for lying to US military, ordering unlawful attack and invasions of foreign lands, and causing thousands of US military deaths.
Crimes Against Humanity for ongoing intentional policy of poverty that’s killed over 400 million human beings just since 1995 (~75% children; more deaths than from all wars in Earth’s recorded history).
Our condition requiring YOUR voice is what Benjamin Franklin predicted would be the eventual outcome of the United States. On September 18, 1787, just after signing the US Constitution, Ben met with members of the press. He was asked what kind of government America would have. Franklin warned: “A republic, if you can keep it.” In his speech to the Constitutional Convention, Franklin admonished:
“This [U.S. Constitution] is likely to be administered for a course of years and then end in despotism… when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.” – The Quotable Founding Fathers, pg. 39.
These warnings extend to all social science teachers of the present:
“As educators in the field of history–social science, we want our students to… understand the value, the importance, and the fragility of democratic institutions. We want them to realize that only a small fraction of the world’s population (now or in the past) has been fortunate enough to live under a democratic form of government.” – History-Social Science Framework for California Public Schools, pgs. 2, 7-8
Do you have the intellectual integrity and moral courage to at least act with the honesty of a child to speak the Emperor’s New Clothes truth? Remember, I’m just asking you to use your voice in a democratic republic to ask US military and various law enforcement to honor their Oaths and do the job we pay them for: protect and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. There is no greater enemy than those committing treason to war-murder US military by lying them into invasive illegal Wars of Aggression.
3. Cause a lawful end to the dictatorial US rogue state
In conclusion, this essay has reminded you of what you already know: laws are meant to be simple and helpful, what you’ve suspected about the wars is demonstrated as true with a few clear facts, and that your voice is essential if we are to maintain our republic from devolving into dictatorship (literally being dictated/told what the rules are rather than knowing them ourselves).
To remind you of other history that demonstrates this has been an ongoing problem of what is most accurately described as a rogue state: a “top ten” list of state crimes supporting today’s arrests in a constitutional republic:
The CIA had several covert wars; perhaps most important in today’s context of war on Iran: “Operation Ajax” that overthrew Iran’s democracy and installed a US-friendly and brutal dictator. When that dictator was overthrown and Iran refused another, the US aided Iraq to unlawfully invade and attack Iran from 1980-1988; killing up to a million Iranians. If the US lied and acted twice to unlawfully overthrew Iran’s democracy within many of our own lifetimes, shouldn’t we assume first another lie-started unlawful war today?
The two “reasons” for war with Iran are as false as the “reasons” for war with Iraq: Iran never threatened Israel, and Iran’s nuclear energy and medicine programs are IAEA-verified as completely safe and lawful.
If We the People don’t speak, we will have more of the same.
And if We the People speak as simply and confidently to stop a tank driving on the wrong side of the freeway or a baseball team trying to get four outs instead of three, we’ll win this contest with ease.
National security and a brighter future is not a function of fear, manipulation, and psychopathic control. Our best security follows cooperation, justice under the law, dignity, and freedom. Surely you recognize that all promised natural rights in America are now gone, and the 99.99% are herded by the .01% as their work animals.
Working for your best imagined self-expression of virtue may include a unique contribution from the inside of your agency. You, as Darth Vader and Professor Snape in fictions that are popular for strong resonance to a real story we all want told, can reclaim your hearts and honor to be our heroes.
Truly, aren’t you ready now to re-embrace love and honor as your path?
Please consider the wisdom of a “Scrooge conversion” to act for the benefit of all humanity rather than your self-proclaimed loveless “masters.” From Dickens’ 1843 text:
“Scrooge was better than his word. He did it all, and infinitely more; and to Tiny Tim, who did not die, he was a second father. He became as good a friend, as good a master, and as good a man, as the good old city knew, or any other good old city, town, or borough, in the good old world. Some people laughed to see the alteration in him, but he let them laugh, and little heeded them; for he was wise enough to know that nothing ever happened on this globe, for good, at which some people did not have their fill of laughter in the outset; and knowing that such as these would be blind anyway, he thought it quite as well that they should wrinkle up their eyes in grins, as have the malady in less attractive forms. His own heart laughed: and that was quite enough for him.”
4-minute video of Darth Vader’s choice to serve love, family, and community rather than vicious psychopathic hatred:
Public attraction to the stories of Star Wars and the Harry Potter books/movies recognize that our society’s jump to civilized relations for all of us might require support from people within the “dark side” acting as covert agents for building a brighter future.
Both Darth Vader (see video) and Professor Snape realized they were only tools of powers above them, things to be manipulated rather than sentient beings of free will. The severest irony is they both recognized their service to the “dark side” included deaths of their loved-ones and even themselves whenever convenient to their “masters.” That was Snape’s ending, although his path was taken with honor to infiltrate the darkness (4-minute video):
But that should be an obvious conclusion to those working in the real-world version of these analogies. We see it in the macro picture of millions killed every year through war and poverty, and in micro with individuals who we know.
For years, I have recommended Truth and Reconciliation to exchange full truth and return of public assets for no prosecution and a guaranteed provided comfortable retirement. Indeed, I am prepared to speak on the .01%’s corporate media to present this option with full confidence it is the most efficient in ending the crimes and avoiding a violent end-game as the .01% are recognized for who they really are by the 99.99%.
“Every day, I saw more evidence about the evils humankind will inflict on their fellow humans to gain or maintain power…What is more, those who choose not to empathize may enable real monsters. For without ever committing an act of outright evil ourselves, we collude with it through our own apathy…If you choose to use your status and influence to raise your voice on behalf of those who have no voice; if you choose to identify not only with the powerful, but with the powerless; if you retain the ability to imagine yourself into the lives of those who do not have your advantages, then it will not only be your proud families who celebrate your existence, but thousands and millions of people whose reality you have helped transform for the better. We do not need magic to change the world, we carry all the power we need inside ourselves already: we have the power to imagine better.” – J. K. Rowling, Harvard Commencement, June 5, 2008.
Will you continue to defend your loveless and psychopathic “masters,” or reclaim your hearts and humanity for the Everyday People these .01% annually kill in the millions, harm in the billions, and loot by the trillions of dollars? Playing For Change’sartistic 3-minutes:
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
Note:Examiner.com has blocked public access to my articles on their site (and from other whistleblowers), so some links in my previous work are blocked. If you’d like to search for those articles other sites may have republished, use words from the article title within the blocked link. Or, go tohttp://archive.org/web/, paste the expired link into the box, click “Browse history,” then click onto the screenshots of that page for each time it was screen-shot and uploaded to webarchive. I’ll update as “hobby time” allows; including my earliest work from 2009 to 2011 (blocked author pages: here, here).
These achievements are a testament to the sad reality that military interests are often the first to take advantage of wondrous advancements such as AI, just as nuclear physics and other technologies were hijacked for more efficient methods of killing.
Governments seem to be engaged in an AI arms race, designing planes and weapons with intelligent technologies. The funding for projects directly beneficial to the human race, such as improved medical screening seems a somewhat lower priority.
The AI fighter jet pilot, known as Alpha, was developed by researchers from the University of Cincinnati and defense company Psibernetix. It used four virtual jets to defend a coastline from two attacking planes with superior weapons systems—without suffering any losses.
Retired US Air Force colonel Gene Lee was shot out of the air every time after protracted engagements, and could not even manage to score a hit on Alpha.
The groundbreaking feat was accomplished through the use of “fuzzy logic” to efficiently compute the massive amounts of data from a simulated fighter jet. Instead of analyzing every bit of data equally, fuzzy logic assigns a degree of truth or significance to the pieces of data before making a broader decision.
“Here, you’ve got an AI system that seems to be able to deal with the air-to-air environment, which is extraordinarily dynamic, has an extraordinary number of parameters and, in the paper, more than holds its own against a skilled and capable, experienced combat pilot,” said Doug Barrie, a military aerospace analyst at think tank IISS.
“It’s like a chess master losing out to a computer.”
For now, the talk is about using Alpha “as a simulation tool or as a device to help develop better systems for assisting human pilots in the air.” But it’s a safe assumption that using AI to pilot real machines is being explored by a military machine incessantly hungry for the next best means of reaping death and destruction.
If an AI fighter pilot were ever to fly an actual fighter jet, the obvious question is, what happens when it decides to attack a non-military target? Of course, human pilots routinely bomb innocent civilians, but this is “justified” as collateral damage in the pursuit of defeating the bogeyman du jour.
The unmanned torpedo-launching sea vessel system, called Seagull, will soon be put into use by the Israeli Navy for use against submarines and sea mines. It consists of one or two surface vessels, each about 40 feet long, operated remotely from manned ships or the shore.
One vessel carries a sonar system that can search the entire water volume, with another that deploys an underwater robot for further investigation. When a threat is confirmed, a vessel launches a torpedo-like weapon to destroy the target.
This test carried out in the Haifa port marks the first time that a torpedo has been launched from an unmanned boat.
‘The success of the first torpedo launch test is a major milestone, confirming the Unmanned Surface Vessel’s capability to incorporate weapons that counter submarines, in addition to its unique submarine and mine detection capabilities,’ Elbit, the firm behind the trial said.
While it’s great to “take the man out of the minefield,” the Seagull also represents the kind of military advancement we see with unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones.
As we know, drones have been the tool of choice for expanding undeclared war into countries in the name of fighting terrorism, which has resulted in thousands of innocent civilians being killed. When bombing is carried out remotely, from the comfort of a padded seat in a secure building, the operator is that much more detached from the reality of killing people.
Former drone operators have gone public about the blood lust and indifference that characterizes the drone assassination program, and fellow operators getting intoxicated to “bend that reality and try to picture yourself not being there.”
Of course, operating torpedo-equipped sea vessels is a different beast, but the trend toward unmanned killing machines is nonetheless troubling. With AI being brought into military technology, how long before scenes from the Terminator movies are a real thing?
Lyman, SC – A remarkable incident is being largely ignored by corporate mainstream media – as it doesn’t fit their “guns are bad” narrative. A man with a concealed carry license stopped a mass shooting in progress outside a South Carolina nightclub in the early morning hours on Sunday after an assailant opened fire in a crowed of people, striking and injuring three people.
Jody Ray Thompson, 32, faces multiple attempted murder charges stemming from the incident, according to Spartanburg County deputies. None of the victims’ injuries were life-threatening, according to police.
“His rounds struck 3 victims, and almost struck a fourth victim, who in self-defense, pulled his own weapon and fired, striking Thompson in the leg,” Lt. Kevin Bobo said.
Police said that after getting into an altercation with another man, Thompson pulled out a firearm and began firing into a crowd of people that had gathered near the front of the club around 3:30 a.m., according to WISTV-10.
As Thompson was firing at the crowd of people, one of his would-be victims, with a concealed carry permit, was able to return fire, striking Thompson in the leg and ending the mass shooting in progress.
“Thompson was still on the scene when deputies arrived, but the initial scene was chaotic,” Lt. Bobo said. “It wasn’t until victims and witnesses were interviewed, and video from the scene was reviewed that Thompson was identified as the suspect.”
Police confirmed that the man who stopped the attack had a valid concealed weapons permit and won’t face any charges. Thompson faces four counts of attempted murder, possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime, and unlawful carrying of a weapon.
June 30, 2016 “Information Clearing House” – Democracy no longer exists in the West. In the US powerful private interest groups, such as the military-security complex, Wall Street, the Israel Lobby, agribusiness and the extractive industries of energy, timber and mining, have long exercised more control over government than the people. But now even the semblance of democracy has been abandoned.
In the US Donald Trump has won the Republican presidential nomination. However, Republican convention delegates are plotting to deny Trump the nomination that the people have voted him. The Republican political establishment is showing an unwillingness to accept democratic outcomes.
The people chose, but their choice is unacceptable to the establishment which intends to substitute its choice for the people’s choice.
Do you remember Dominic Strauss-Kahn? Strauss-Kahn is the Frenchman who was head of the IMF and, according to polls, the likely next president of France. He said something that sounded too favorable toward the Greek people. This concerned powerful banking interests who worried that he might get in the way of their plunder of Greece, Portugal, Spain, and Italy. A hotel maid appeared who accused him of rape. He was arrested and held without bail. After the police and prosecutors had made fools of themselves, he was released with all charges dropped. But the goal was achieved. Strauss-Kahn had to resign as IMF director and kiss goodbye his chance for the presidency of France.
Curious, isn’t it, that a woman has now appeared who claims Trump raped her when she was 13 years old.
Consider the political establishment’s response to the Brexit vote. Members of Parliament are saying that the vote is unacceptable and that Parliament has the right and responsibility to ignore the voice of the people.
The view now established in the West is that the people are not qualified to make political decisions. The position of the opponents of Brexit is clear: it simply is not a matter for the British people whether their sovereignty is given away to an unaccountable commission in Brussels.
Martin Schultz, President of the EU Parliament, puts it clearly: “It is not the EU philosophy that the crowd can decide its fate.”
The Western media have made it clear that they do not accept the people’s decision either. The vote is said to be “racist” and therefore can be disregarded as illegitimate.
Washington has no intention of permitting the British to exit the European Union. Washington did not work for 60 years to put all of Europe in the EU bag that Washington can control only to let democracy undo its achievement.
The Federal Reserve, its Wall Street allies, and its Bank of Japan and European Central Bank vassals will short the UK pound and equities, and the presstitutes will explain the decline in values as “the market’s” pronouncement that the British vote was a mistake. If Britain is actually permitted to leave, the two-year long negotiations will be used to tie the British into the EU so firmly that Britain leaves in name only.
No one with a brain believes that Europeans are happy that Washington and NATO are driving them into conflict with Russia. Yet their protests have no effect on their governments.
Consider the French protests of what the neoliberal French government, masquerading as socialist, calls “labor law reforms.” What the “reform” does is to take away the reforms that the French people achieved over decades of struggle. The French made employment more stable and less uncertain, thereby reducing stress and contributing to the happiness of life. But the corporations want more profit and regard regulations and laws that benefit people as barriers to higher profitability. Neoliberal economists backed the takeback of French labor rights with the false argument that a humane society causes unemployment. The neoliberal economists call it “liberating the employment market” from reforms achieved by the French people.
The French government, of course, represents corporations, not the French people.
The neoliberal economists and politicians have no qualms about sacrificing the quality of French life in order to clear the way for global corporations to make more profits. What is the value in “the global market” when the result is to worsen the fate of peoples?
Consider the Germans. They are being overrun with refugees from Washington’s wars, wars that the stupid German government enabled. The German people are experiencing increases in crime and sexual attacks. They protest, but their government does not hear them. The German government is more concerned about the refugees than it is about the German people.
Consider the Greeks and the Portuguese forced by their governments to accept personal financial ruin in order to boost the profits of foreign banks. These governments represent foreign bankers, not the Greek and Portuguese people.
One wonders how long before all Western peoples conclude that only a French Revolution complete with guillotine can set them free.
Powerful Interest Groups Have Triumphed Over The Rule Of Law
By Paul Craig Roberts
This from a reader:
“It was reported this morning that recently the jet that Attorney General Loretta Lynch was on just happened to be on the same ramp as the one carrying Bill Clinton.
“And somehow each party apparently knew of the presence of the other.
“And they were in close enough proximity that Bill and Loretta met privately in one of the jets.
“The FBI (a department under the AG) is investigating Hillary’s emails as a criminal violation of the espionage act and the funding of the Clinton Foundation by foreign interests.
“Seems to me that this is more than coincidental and is highly irregular for a prosecuting official to meet privately with a potential defendant—or husband of a potential defendant.
“Wonder who’s jet they met on? Did the AG go to Bill’s jet? Wouldn’t that be particularly unusual? Did Bill go over to the AG’s jet, and if so why would the AG allow it and precipitate such a conflict of interests?”
Here is confirmation that this meeting did occur:
There was a half hour meeting on the AG’s plane. Watch the news video from ABC 15:
As a former CIA spy who has trained over 7,500 officers from over 66 countries, Robert Steele has over 18 years experience across the U.S. Intelligence community and an additional 20 years experience in commercial intelligence and training. He is also a former Marine and he is the co-founder of the Marine Corps Intelligence Activity.
In accord to open source everything, Robert’s motto is: The truth at any cost, lowers all other costs.
Essentially, when information, technology and resources are opened up as the commons to all, the true cost plummets and the well-being of our planet and all living beings here begin to thrive, as well as our social, political and financial systems.
In Robert’s own words, the open source revolution will transform our world for the better and for all.
“Sharing, not secrecy, is the means by which we realize such a lofty destiny as well as create infinite wealth. The wealth of networks, the wealth of knowledge, revolutionary wealth- all can create a nonzero, win-win Earth that works for 100% of humanity. This is the ‘utopia’ that Buckminster Fuller foresaw, now within our reach.”
Similar models to Steele’s open source everything also include The Venus Project: Beyond Politics, Poverty and War, which calls for a holistic approach to changing the systems on this planet in a way that utilizes technology and human ingenuity to provide a high standard of living for every person by opening the planet’s resources for the use of all– in a strategically sustainable and efficient manner.
Another model that is similar is Sustainable Human’s gift-based community in which all who participate are volunteers and everything created is done to “spread knowledge, ideas and alternative ways of living that enable humanity to live in harmony with the rest of life on Earth. ”
All of these models are wonderful and appropriate to envision, and what is certain is that most of the social systems we have in place currently, must go. Fundamental change is necessary.
In an interview with The Guardian, Robert David Steele was asked his opinion on the idea that the U.S. is on the verge of revolting against the elitist 1%:
“The preconditions for revolution exist in the UK, and most Western countries [including the U.S].
The number of active pre-conditions is quite stunning, from elite isolation to concentrated wealth to inadequate socialization and education, to concentrated land-holdings to loss of authority to repression of new technologies, especially in relation to energy, to the atrophy of the public sector and spread of corruption, to media dishonesty, to mass unemployment of young men and on and on and on.”
What then needs to happen for this to begin? Steele says:
“Preconditions are not the same as precipitants. We are waiting for our Tunisian fruit seller. The public will endure great repression, especially when most media outlets and schools are actively aiding the repressive meme of ‘you are helpless, this is the order of things.’
When we have a scandal so powerful that it cannot be ignored by the average Briton or American, we will have a revolution that overturns the corrupt political systems in both countries, and perhaps puts many banks out of business. Vaclav Handel calls this ‘The Power of the Powerless.’ One spark, one massive fire.”
Interestingly, this interview was conducted almost exactly 2 years ago. Have we not seen the divide between the 99% and the 1% continue to grow in that time? Humanity will not remain quiet for much longer. We are indeed close to some big and positive changes.
Perhaps this massive scandal/event we are waiting for is the conclusion of the FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation or maybe it is Britain’s vote to leave the EU, potentially triggering a cascade of revolts throughout Europe and then the world, or perhaps it will be a large enough group of people becoming aware of the global collateral accounts, the world’s largest financial/gold cover-up which has relation to JFK’s death and the events of 9/11; a story which just three weeks ago Robert David Steele started to write about publicly:
“It never occurred to me that accidentally becoming the top Amazon reviewer for non-fiction, partially associated with my being the lead for Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) for 25 years across 66+ countries, would be vastly more important than everything I ever learned across multiple graduate degrees, as a former spy, and as co-founder of the Marine Corps Intelligence Activity (MCIA).As I encounter disbelief about Neil Keenan and his role as the main juncture between the Dragon Society and the West as we move toward a global economic re-set, I have to remind myself that 80% of the public still thinks JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald; J. Edgar Hoover was a moral man; the Israelis attacked the USS Liberty by accident, and 9/11 was carried out by a bunch of “rag heads” armed with box cutters.
I must emphasize that it was not the books that underlay my absolute confidence in Neil Keenan and the Dragon Society and the broad outlines of the coming global re-set, but rather the people behind the books that I have taken the trouble to meet, sometimes under quasi-clandestine circumstances. Sterling and Peggy Seagrave – Peggy has passed – stand out.
The public endorsement of Neil Keenan and his team’s efforts to open the global collateral accounts from Robert David Steele is another clear indication that these accounts are indeed real and that those who are working with Neil Keenan (positive factions within The Pentagon and CIA, Russian Intelligence, presidents and prime ministers of multiple South American countries and several Asian countries, among many other political, financial and intelligence and military groups who are all quietly and sometimes openly working for humanity’s best interest) are legitimate.
The global collateral accounts have such a deep and complex history, which can be read in great detail here. In short, they are off-ledger accounts backed by gold, silver and many other assets which were originally intended for humanitarian projects.
JFK signed what is known as the Green Hilton Memorial Agreement with President Sukarno of Indonesia, which was to use these accounts to issue a new US Treasury Note (backed by gold and silver) and end the Federal Reserve’s control over the global financial system.
Neil Keenan is now getting very close to opening these accounts for the intended purposes of transforming our world for the better through many humanitarian projects as well as the release of free energy technologies and an overhaul in the global financial system. Russia, China, Iran, Indonesia and almost the entire Eastern hemisphere is supporting this plan in one way or another.
Perhaps Robert David Steele’s ideas on an open source world will be part of the coming humanitarian projects.
As almost anyone can see when they look around either at their own lives or the world at large, everything is changing. Everything is in flux. Everything happens in cycles. The time for positive global change is now.
For more information on some of the topics mentioned above, check out these articles:
In a column for Foreign Policy Magazine, Council on Foreign Relations member James Traub argues that the elite need to “rise up” against the “mindlessly angry” ignorant masses in order to prevent globalization from being derailed by the populist revolt that led to Brexit and the rise of Donald Trump.
Concerned that, “Today’s citizen revolt — in the United States, Britain, and Europe — may upend politics as nothing else has in my lifetime,” Traub notes that Brexit was an “utter repudiation of….bankers and economists” and an example of how “extremism has gone mainstream”.
Citing the potential for Trump to split the Republican Party even if he loses and the increasing unpopularity of France’s socialist government, Traub argues that establishment political parties in major western countries must “combine forces to keep out the nationalists”.
“With prospects of flat growth in Europe and minimal income growth in the United States, voters are rebelling against their dismal long-term prospects,” writes Traub. “And globalization means culture as well as economics: Older people whose familiar world is vanishing beneath a welter of foreign tongues and multicultural celebrations are waving their fists at cosmopolitan elites.”
Traub’s tone is so contemptuous, he even describes the pro-Trump Republican base as “know nothing” voters and sneers at voters in Poland for being concerned about “values and tradition,” while stressing that the push for further globalization will pit “poor and non-white and marginal citizens” against “working-class and middle-class whites,” whom he describes as angry “fist-shakers”.
Traub admits that his outlook is “elitist” but that, “It is necessary to say that people are deluded and that the task of leadership is to un-delude them.”
Reaction to the article was piercingly vitriolic, with one respondent commenting, “If you’ve ever wondered what the conversations between aristocrats were like as the peasants were storming the Bastille, I suspect some of them were a lot like this Foreign Policy article.”
The piece is yet another stunning example of how disconnected elites are to the people whom they insult and wish to rule over.
Traub, a Harvard graduate from a super-wealthy family that owns the Bloomingdale’s chain of luxury department stores, has no idea whatsoever how things like mass uncontrolled immigration, deindustrialization and globalization impact ordinary working westerners.
His sneering pomposity is precisely why many Brits voted for Brexit and why many Americans will vote for Donald Trump.
In refusing to listen to or understand the concerns of hundreds of millions of people who have been disenfranchised by globalism, and instead arrogantly doubling down on his chutzpah, Traub is only ensuring that more people will join the populist revolt that led to Brexit in the first place.