There Is No Winning An Illegal War

Well, I can certainly speak for the entire I.U. community on this issue, as we have discussed this many, many times.

The GOP, in general, and the Bush administration, in particular, set themseleves up as the epitome of morality and swore to bring dignity and integrity back to the White House. George W. Bush is, without a doubt, the most obviously religious American president in modern times, if ever, or appears to be..

Yet, they do not seem to understand how the laws of the universe (God) work.

From the moment the White House began lying to the American people about Iraq, and actually deceiving many, the war was lost.

Before the first bomb fell on Baghdad, the chances of "victory in Iraq," whatever that meant, were zero.

Deception, especially in the form of fear-mongering, is one of humanity's great evils. No good ever comes from such behavior. When you scare a person or a people, with wild talk of mushroom clouds rising over American cities and drones spraying the Eastern seaboard with some horrible bioweapon, you can count on bringing out the very worst in that person or people

Scared people do crazy things, like giving Bush, Cheney and the NeoCons a blank check to wreak havoc in the world.

But not only did the administration's lies cause an already shocked and scared America to back this insane and criminal war, it convinced many Americans that Saddam had something to do with the events of 9/11. Some of those deceived Americans would invade Iraq, with vengeance on their minds, not liberation.

So, the mother of all war crimes, a war of aggression, led inevitably to crimes against humanity. That was predictable. What was shocking was the extent and depravity of the cruelty our soldiers and others would inflict, in our name, mostly on innocent people, not that it matters whether or not the people treated so horribly were innocent. No one should be treated with such cruel contempt. Stooping to the level of the enemy (supposedly Al Qaeda) makes "winning" impossible.

What does it profit a man, if he gains the whole world, but loses his soul?

Ask Dick Cheney and others who have become very wealthy off this war; off the misery of so many. But wait until they begin to reap that which they have sown, and they will. It is as sure as the sunrise.

What's coming will be a karmic gob-smack that will go down in history, hopefully as a lesson to all leaders who contemplate such actions. Unfortunately, those of us who saw through the illusions painted by the Bushites and tried to warn our neighbors and friends, our countrymen and women, cannot but be smacked as well.

That's life; that is the way of the universe. Actions bring about reactions.

And so it goes.....


Original Content at http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_gina_mar_070503_you_can_t_win_an_ill.htm

May 4, 2007

You can't Win an Illegal War
By Gina-Marie Cheeseman


Republican Representative Devin Nunes of California, and my representative, declared this week that he saw progress in Iraq during a recent trip to the Green Zone in Baghdad. The only places he visited were U.S. military bases.

The conservative Democratic Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Republican Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, and one other House Republican, traveled with Nunes. The Congressional members did not visit Iraqi markets or neighborhoods. During their trip at least 687 Iraqis were killed, and nine American service members.

The simple fact remains that you cannot win an illegal war. When President Bush took the Presidential Oath of Office during his inauguration, he pledged to “guard against presidential excess or wrongdoing.” He also pledged to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” If the president “intentionally” subverted or undermined the Constitution then he perverted the oath.

Furthermore, Bush also violated the UN Charter by invading and occupying Iraq. International law experts refer to the invasion and occupation of Iraq as a preventive war. Preventive war violates the UN Charter. The preamble states that “armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest.”

The second article of the Charter states that member nations must “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.” The UN Charter prohibits wars which the UN Security Council did not authorize, save for self defense.

The UN Charter is part of US law. It was signed by then President Harry Truman, and subsequently ratified by the Senate. The Executive Director of the Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute, Ann Fagan Ginger, describes the UN Charter as the “supreme law of the land.” When the Senate ratified the Charter, “the United States made certain commitments to all other member nations to obey the law set forth in the Charter.”

According to Richard Falk, retired international law professor, the UN Charter “carries forward the idea that all wars that are not fought in self defense or with the approval of the UN Security Council are illegal wars…a crime against peace.” Falk believes the US has violated the UN Charter by invading and occupying Iraq, and violates the “spirit and letter of the U.S. Constitution.”

Former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan answered yes when he was asked if the invasion and occupation of Iraq were illegal. ““I have indicated it is not in conformity with the UN Charter, from our point of view, and from the Charter point of view it was illegal,” he went on to say. A spokesman for Annan, Fred Eckhard said during a September 2004 press conference in New York, “He has over the past more than a year used the words 'not in conformity with the Charter' to describe his view of the Iraq war… His purposes in establishing the UN panel on change was to look at the question of preventive war and try to bring that in conformity with the Charter principles, which do not promote preventive war.”

In an article for the journal Foreign Affairs, professor of international law at Tufts University, Michael Glennon stated that UN Resolution 1441 which found Iraq in “material breach” of past resolutions did not “explicitly authorize force, however, and Washington pledged to return to the council for another discussion before resorting to arms.” Glennon also noted that the UN Charter’s Article 51 “permits the use of force only in self defense…if an armed attack occurs against a member of the UN.”

A treatise by Duncan E.J. Currie who practiced international law for over 20 years referred to the Bush administration’s preventive war doctrine as “departure from the prohibition of the use of force under international law” which is a part of the UN Charter. Currie described the Bush administration document the “National Security Strategy of the United States,” published in 2002, as implying “that the U.S…is willing to act beyond the constraints of international law and even beyond limits it has observed in the past.”

The British law practice Matrix Chambers published four opinions about military force against Iraq. One of the opinions declared that the “use of force against Iraq would not be justified under international law” unless Baghdad directly attacked the U.S. or U.K., or the UN Security Council “authorized the use of force in clear terms.” They wrote concerning UN Resolution 1441, “Russia, China, and France made clear: they did not want the resolution to authorize force.”


Scott Ritter and other experts on Iraq’s WMD capabilities

Bush also violated the Presidential Oath of Office by making misleading claims about Iraq. The Congress authorized the Bush administration to use force against Iraq based on faulty intelligence. Scott Ritter was the UN’s top weapons inspector until he resigned in 1998. Ritter debunked the administration’s claims in a series of editorials in various American and British newspapers. He insisted that there was a “90-95 percent level of verified disarmament.”

All chemical weapons Iraq produced pre-1990 “would have degraded within five years” except for mustard gas, according to Ritter. He assured that biological weapons “would have neutralized through natural processes within three years of manufacture.” Furthermore, Ritter declared that the monitoring of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (chemical and biological weapons) from 1994-1998 did not produce “any evidence of retained proscribed activity” by Iraq to reproduce chemical and biological weapons.

Ritter had strong words concerning the Bush administration’s statements about Iraq’s WMD capability, namely that the administration “provides only speculation,” and failed to provide factual details of their claims. “To date no one has held the Bush administration accountable for its unwillingness - or inability - to provide such evidence.”

The man the Bush administration chose to finish Iraq’s weapons inspections stated in a report released in 2004 that the ability of Iraq to produce nuclear weapons “progressively decayed” since 1991, and Iraq had not made efforts to restart the program. Duelfer told a Senate panel in October 2004, “We were almost all wrong [on Iraq].”

The top intelligence official at the U.S. State Department until resigning prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Greg Thielmann, told Frontline the Bush administration diverged from “the kind of qualified and fairly carefully structured intelligence that they were being provided.”

Thielmann believed the stories about Iraq’s attempts to purchase uranium from Niger “bad intelligence…it was something that made no sense, in terms of the structure of the country that was allegedly planning to provide the uranium.”

Authors Website: www.truthtellingforum.com
Authors Bio: Gina-Marie Cheeseman is a freelance writer with a passion for social justice. She grew up on a vineyard ranch in the San Joaquin Valley of California. Her brain has not been fried from too much Fresno sunshine.

Sent in by Hawkeye

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

CCR Warns of Illegality of Further Military Action, as Against Iran

This is heavy-duty!

We are headed for a major showdown in this country, because the fact of the matter is, these people are right and the Bush administration is planning more war crimes. (Scroll down to see what Bob Parry is saying)

If we have all of the executive and a significant number of elected officials in Congress, who feel they are above the law, act or don't act accordingly, this nation will be way past the tipping point of being classified as an outlaw nation.

Whlie Americans have always gotten mixed reviews in Europe, for example, we have never known what it is like to be citizens of an outlaw nation. We don't have a clue what it would be like for our nation to be a war zone.

One of these nightmares is more likely than it hs been since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The nightmare of being arrested in a foreign country, just for being American is something we have never faced; or simply denied entry into a country, any country.

At what point is a nation's citizenry held accountable along with their leaders, over whom they have no control, at least, of a legal nature?

If Iran is attacked, reported provovation or not, we might seriously consider being prepared to leave the country, within days, if you have thought of leaving, but have postponed it for whatever reason. It might well be your last chance.


CCR and Other Groups Issue Open Letter Warning of Illegality of Any Offensive Military Action
by US against Iran

WASHINGTON - January 31 - Today European, international, and U.S. legal and human rights groups issued an open letter warning of the illegality of any offensive military action by the United States against Iran. Signatories include the Center for Constitutional Rights (U.S.), Droite Solidarite (France), European Association of Lawyers for Human Rights and Democracy, Italian Association of Democratic Lawyers, Haldane Society (United Kingdom), International Association of Democratic Lawyers, National Lawyers Guild (U.S.), and Progress Lawyers Network (Belgium).

The text of the letter:

Open Letter to All Members of Congress, the Bush Administration And the U.S. Armed Forces From Legal and Human Rights Groups

There are increasing indications that the Bush administration intends to take military action against Iran. There are also indications that the administration would support military action by Israel against Iran.

The undersigned organizations issue this Open Letter to All Members of Congress, the Administration and the U.S. Armed Forces to reiterate their affirmative duties to prevent military action and to refrain from ongoing threats to peace.

Such military action would be illegal, and any member of the administration, the military or Congress supporting such action would be aiding and abetting this violation.

Offensive military action against Iran would be illegal, as the United States is bound under the United Nations Charter to settle international disputes by peaceful means and to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of any state or act in any other manner inconsistent with the purpose of the United Nations (Article 2 sections 3 and 4). While Article 51 of the charter recognizes the inherent right of individual or collective self defense, such a right exists only if an armed attack occurs and is allowed only until the Security Council can take measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.

The UN Charter, as a treaty signed by the U.S., is part of the Supreme Law of the United States under Article VI §2 of the United States Constitution. If the President and Congress fail to abide by the law as provided in the Constitution they violate their sacred oaths of office.

Any military action against Iran in the absence of a military strike by Iran would be a war of aggression outlawed under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. The sending of aircraft carriers combined with recent threatening statements constitutes a threat to wage an aggressive war, which is also prohibited by the Charter. Crimes against peace include: planning, preparation, initiation or waging a war of aggression in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy to accomplish these acts.

The United States and all countries of the world that have signed the UN Charter are required to abide by their obligations under it. It is in the interests of all countries of the world that the United Nations be a viable multilateral institution capable of carrying out the mission of its charter to preserve peace and promote development and human rights. Actions which violate that charter undermine it. Actions by the US which violate the charter prevent the UN from acting effectively; they also undermine the credibility of the US in the world community. The US cannot demand that other countries obey the terms of the UN Charter while it is violating those very provisions with impunity.

The War Powers Act, which requires congressional approval of military action, must be read consistently with our obligations under the UN Charter not to engage in wars of aggression. We urge:

1. The President, Vice President, and all other members of the Bush administration who are in a decision-making role with regard to taking military action in Iran, to immediately renounce such efforts to engage in this war;

2. The members of the military to refuse any requests by the administration to draw up or execute plans for any invasion or other military action against Iran in light of the illegality of such actions; and

3. That Congress immediately pass a binding resolution reaffirming the United States’ legal obligations and informing the President and the administration that it will not concur in any proposed invasion of or military action against Iran, would refuse to approve funding for any such military action, and would consider actions taken in contravention of the resolution as impeachable offenses.

The Center for Constitutional Rights
Vincent Warren, Executive DirectorBill Goodman, Legal Director

Droite Solidarite
Roland Weyl, President

European Association of Lawyers for Human Rights and Democracy
RA Thomas Schmid, Secretary GeneralProfessor Bill Bowring

Italian Association of Democratic Lawyers
Fabio Marcelli

Haldane Society, United Kingdom
Liz Davies

International Association of Democratic Lawyers
Jitendra Sharma, President, Jeanne Mirer, Secretary General

National Lawyers Guild
Marjorie Cohn, President

Progress Lawyers Network, Belgium
Jan Fermon

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.