When US government “leaders” told known lies to unlawfully invade Iraq seven years ago, they committed the crime of treason by levying war against our own soldiers and Constitution. Corporate media are complicit in treason as they also lied by commission and omission to dupe American soldiers and public into “emperor has no clothes” obvious unlawful Wars of Aggression.
This article will review:
1. The public evidence proves beyond doubt that all claims for war with Iraq were known lies at the time they were told.
2. The US attack and invasion of Iraq was unlawful in Orwellian degree.
3. The only lawful response from US leaders is to admit the “emperor has no clothes” facts to immediately end these unlawful wars and prosecute its leaders.
4. I recommend a Truth and Reconciliation component to exchange truth and return of public assets for full disclosure of the political and economic agenda driving these fascist policies of empire and destruction of the US Constitution and economy. Because criminal complicity is so deep in both political parties, corporate media, and key economic institutions, the most expeditious strategy to end criminal acts and turn our nation’s resources to constructive use is to encourage safe and full disclosure. That which is not disclosed in a reasonable window of time, such as one year, will be subject to criminal and civil prosecution.
1. Evidence that Iraq war claims were all known as OBVIOUS lies as they were told:
I initially created the following information
as a brief for my students and members of Congress in 2006. When this information apparently so disturbed the school board who employed me and resulted in my being released from teaching, I then turned it into articles for Examiner.com:
Americans and the world no longer need BELIEVE anything; the specific evidence used to justify invading two countries is now public knowledge. All we have to do is match the government's claims to the exact evidence and you can decide for yourself.
First, as you may recall, there were four basic claims of fact presented by political "leadership" to invade Iraq:
1. Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), a scary-sounding name for specific chemical and biological weapons.
2. The US intercepted aluminum tubes that could only be used to refine nuclear material; irrefutable evidence that Iraq had restarted a nuclear weapons program.
3. Saddam had attempted to purchase enriched uranium from Niger; more evidence that Iraq had reconstituted nuclear weapons development.
4. Saddam had links to Al Qaeda, the alleged terrorists who attacked the US on 9/11.
Here's what we know about the evidence from which those claims were made. This is the summary; for my complete briefing, read here, here, and browse here.
1. George Tenet, Director of the CIA, acknowledged that all US intelligence agency reports "never said there was an imminent threat." This was based on a long history of intelligence reports, the facts that the chemical and biological weapons under consideration were relatively weak without a delivery system, and that Iraq was highly motivated NOT to use them against the US given their understanding such use would provoke war with the world's most powerful military.
3. This claim, repeated by President Bush in the 2003 State of the Union Address, was based on the "Niger documents." These papers were written in grammatically poor French, had a “childlike” forgery of the Niger President’s signature, and had a document signed by a foreign minister who had been out of office for 14 years prior to the date on the document. The forgeries showed-up shortly after the Niger embassy in Rome was robbed, with the only missing items being stationery and Niger government stamps. The same stationery and stamps were used for the forged documents. The CIA warned President Bush on at least three occasions to not make the claim due to the ridiculous evidence. In addition, if Saddam really was making an illegal uranium purchase, it’s likely that both Saddam and the Niger government officials would insist on not having a written record that would document the crime. Republican US Ambassador to Niger, Joseph Wilson, confirmed this information and reported in detail to Vice President Cheney’s office and the CIA.
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 (further explanation here). 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.
Perhaps this analogy will help in one paragraph of allegorical history, one paragraph of allegorical legal history, and one paragraph of legal analysis:
Tony and his Uncle Sam had a Machiavellian history of 40 years with Saddam; a history that included mutually-agreed political assassinations and business transactions worth billions in profits. Sam supplied material assistance to Saddam in attacking his neighbor, Mahmoud, from 1980-1988 after Mahmoud refused further dictatorship from Sam over billions in product profits. Sam and Tony had previously unlawfully taken over Mahoud’s business from 1953-1979. After further complex history between Sam and Saddam, Saddam began selling his product for currencies other than exclusively for Sam’s currency.
In response, Tony and Sam claimed Saddam has deadly weapons with the intent to use them. Saddam had a previous conviction and was forbidden to possess such weapons, but had refused to be searched after Sam made public statements that “someone” should assassinate Saddam. When Sam and Tony threatened to attack Saddam because of his alleged weapons and refusal to be legally searched, Saddam agreed to be searched. While the police were searching Saddam, with no weapons found and when the search was almost complete, Tony and Sam shoot and kill Saddam.
Tony and Sam claim legal self-defense. They claim that the law allows the police to shoot dangerous people with weapons. They say because they had “credible intelligence” Saddam had weapons he was certain to use, Tony and Sam are justified in killing Saddam and “making the world a safer place.” The facts that Saddam was being searched by the police, that the police have the authority to do the shooting and not Tony and Sam (unless they are under reasonable imminent threat of Saddam shooting, which both agree was not the case) is immaterial. Tony says Saddam was a psychopath and a monster. Sam says people like Saddam hate Tony and Sam “for our freedoms.”
Looking further, Sam and then Tony threaten to attack Mahmoud because they claim he has secret deadly weapons with the intent to use them. The police regularly search Mahmoud and have never found evidence of any weapon. Tony and Sam also say Mahmoud threatens to destroy his friend, Benjamin, to “wipe him off the map.” The source of the accusation is a speech Mahmoud made about Benjamin’s abuses of his neighbor, with the transcript proving Mahmoud made no threat, that Sam apparently is again looking for unlawful control over Mahmoud’s business, and that Tony and Sam are obviously lying. Despite the facts, Tony and Sam continue their allegations that Mahmoud is dangerous, saying “the clock is ticking,” and the time for talk is coming to an end.
2. US attack and invasion of Iraq is unlawful in Orwellian degree:
The facts of all claims for war being lies, and the fact that the US and UK have no authority to end a UNSC declared cease-fire make war unlawful, but there’s more. Perhaps the most important law for our military, government and citizens to understand is when war is and is not legal. From my article explaining those laws
Letter of the UN Charter: The UN Charter is a Treaty in Force; an active US treaty. Article VI of the US Constitution declares treaties as having equal power with Constitutional law and laws from Congress. This is also known as the Supremacy Clause.
Therefore what the US president and 2/3 of the Senate have agreed to in a treaty is the law of the US until such time as the US rescinds that treaty obligation. The UN Charter is therefore the law of the US with its clear restrictions of using war as a foreign policy option.
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 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 that 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. The legal classification of what happened on 9/11 is an act of terrorism, not an armed attack. In addition, 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 (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.
Letter of 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.
Philosophy/Spirit of US laws of war: After WW2, humanity spoke and legislated that all wars not in self-defense of an attack upon the nation are unlawful. The world’s citizens and leaders demanded peace.
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 their collective ability to discern lawful defensive wars from unlawful Wars of Aggression covered in BS claims of defense.
An analogy of BS legal cover is the White House “legal” memos attempting to explain obvious torture as legal. When an authority in an expensive suit with a team of lawyers says something vicious is both legal and moral, you should also recognize that is the obvious strategy for a political faction to execute an unlawful war.
Unlawful war analysis: Governments have been vicious killers over the last 100 years, using BS to justify their wars. The UN Charter’s meaning to make war an unlawful act is abundantly clear in its detailed explanations. The US attack of Afghanistan on October 7, 2001 was 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.
The Iraq war in 2003 includes these reasons and expands them with all claims made for war being known as false at the time they were told to the American people and our troops. Your examination of the disclosed evidence will prove that we were lied to as the evidence is obviously and criminally misrepresented. This link provides a summary explanation with further links of complete documentation.
3. Ending US wars by telling the “emperor has no clothes” obvious truth and prosecuting: The US military and government have an Oath to defend and protect the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The Founding Fathers envisioned domestic threat to usurp the limited government and unalienable rights they created; therefore I emphasize the part of our current oath to defend against DOMESTIC THREAT to our Constitutional rights and protections.
The above documentation clearly shows the Iraq war as unlawful and treasonous. It will end as any criminal activity ends, through arrest and prosecution.
Hoping for change is not an effective strategy.
4. The possible productive role of Truth and Reconciliation:
The American fascist crimes are broad and deep. From my article on this topic
US political “leaders” who wage illegal and horrific Wars of Aggression, the worst crime a nation can commit, are actively attacking our Constitution and values. Neither political party will prosecute these crimes.
So what do we do?
Offer Truth and Reconciliation.
Truth and Reconciliation (T&R) offers the people who would like to have a “Scrooge conversion” a safe way to do so. T&R exchanges truth and cooperation to name names and recover stolen public assets for no prosecution. It splits the traitors into those committed to evil from those who stand by the values of the Declaration of Independence that all human beings are equally valued and valuable. If we are all equal, brothers and sisters of one Creator as most people hold in their spiritual/religious/philosophical ontologies, then public policy has to be for the public good. Current policy in finance and war is psychopathic: destructive to the public good with a veneer of socially acceptable behavior and charm.
The freedom for criminals to repent and live the short amount of time they have remaining in their physical bodies in peace is an attractive deal for them and us. We receive an end to war, rapidly end poverty, recover trillions of missing public money (hopefully), reclaim our civil rights, open suppressed technologies like free energy (and here), and avoid war from a cornered enemy who fears prosecution for treason. They receive all their remaining years to live in freedom (I would argue that we give them further incentive for reasonable material comfort) and reclaim their connection and love for humanity; thier very soul.
T&R remains open for anyone to come forward and for anyone named to testify under oath. Those who choose to not cooperate and/or lie under oath are subject to full prosecution under the law when the window for T&R closes. Our slogan can be: Truth or Prosecute, Baby!
I’ll end with my usual admonition for action after the artistic videos from Bravenew Foundation
. I also recommend these four articles in consideration of our eighth year of Iraq war: here
, and here
Fellow Americans: literally for the love of God, it’s time.
It’s time: exercise your 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech and press, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Please provide this article to all Americans if you find it helpful to stop current and future unlawful wars.
This choice is up to our men and women in uniform and government for leadership. I provide:
And, our men and women in uniform must take action as they see best; as will our men and women in government and citizenry. As a teacher of government and law, I conclude our government leadership is guilty of treason against the American public, and guilty of mass murder against our soldiers.
Choose well; our collective future, and your future, depend upon it.
It's time: please share this article with all who can benefit. If you appreciate my work, please subscribe by clicking under the article title (it’s free). Please use my archive of work to help build a brighter future.
I appreciate your attention to these facts and encourage your further study and action consistent with your own self-expression. My recommendations:
Policy response: Gandhi and Martin Luther King advocated public understanding of the facts and non-cooperation with evil. I’m among hundreds who advocate:
- Understand the laws of war (and here). These were legislated after WW2 and are crystal-clear that only self-defense, in a narrow legal meaning, can justify war. The current US wars are not even close to being lawful and are legal treason against the US. Those involved with US military, government, and law enforcement have an oath to protect and defend the US Constitution. To fulfill their oath they must immediately refuse all orders associated with unlawful wars and military-related constant violation of treaties, and arrest those who issue unlawful orders. The Oath of Enlistment to the US Constitution supersedes the fascist insertion of Nazi propaganda to "always place the mission first" of blindly following unlawful orders.
- Employ the obvious and simple solutions to end our economic controlled demolition and evolve to a civil economy. End poverty through global cooperation to achieve the UN Millennium Goals by developed countries investing 0.7% of their income (not that the UN is serious for their accomplishment, but the goals are what we should invest to produce). Support global security through cooperation, dignity, justice, and freedom. Create a US Department of Peace to help.
- Communicate. Trust your unique, beautiful, and powerful self-expression to share as you feel appropriate. Understand that while many people are ready to embrace difficult facts, many are not. Anticipate that you will be attacked and prepare your virtuous response in the spirit of competition, just as you do in other fields.
- Prosecute the war leaders for obvious violation of the letter and spirit of US war laws and constant lies to engage in further wars. Because the crimes are so broad and deep, I recommend Truth and Reconciliation (T&R) to exchange full truth and return of stolen US assets for non-prosecution. This is the most expeditious way to understand and end all unlawful and harmful acts. Those who reject T&R are subject to prosecution.