The following is reproduced with permission of the publisher, Clarity Press
and can be found in the book, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence - Could
The US War On Terrorism Go Nuclear? by Francis A. Boyle (April, 2002). See
http://www.bookmasters.com/clarity/b0018.htm for the Table of Contents
listing and book reviews. The author's biography and a summary of the book
are included in the References section.
SPECIAL INTRODUCTION
George Bush, Jr., September 11th and the Rule of Law
by Francis A. Boyle
1 February 2002
from The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence
- Could The US War On Terrorism Go Nuclear?
Clarity Press, April 2002
Contents
* Machiavelli Redux * The Prostitution of NATO
* International Legal Nihilism * Bush Jr.'s Crusade
* 11 September 2001 * The U.S./UN Ambassador of Death
o The Facts * Nazi "Self-defense" Resurfaces
o The Powell/Blair White Paper * Retaliation Is Not Self-Defense
o The Cover-Ups * Choosing Violent Resolutions for
o The Bin Laden Video International Disputes
* Framing a Response to September 11th * Humanitarian Catastrophe
o Terrorism and the Law * Why War?
o The U.S. Policy Preference: * It's Still the Oil, Stupid!
o The U.S. Policy * How Empires Rule at Home
Not Terrorism -- War o Bush Jr.'s Constitutional
o The UN Security Council Coup D'Êtat
Disagrees: Terrorism, not War o Ashcroft's Police State
o Bush Sr. v. Bush Jr. o Bush's Kangaroo Courts
* No Declaration of War from Congress o The Bush Jr. Withdrawal
o The Infamy of Korematsu from the ABM Treaty
o Instead, A Blank Check * Conclusion/Prologue
to Use Military Force * Notes
o Bush Sr. v. Bush Jr. Redux
* "Ending States"
* Honest Nuclear War-Mongering * References
George W. Bush was never elected President by the People of the
United States of America. Instead, he was anointed for that Office
by five Justices of the United States Supreme Court who themselves
had been appointed by Republican Presidents. Bush Jr.'s
installation was an act of judicial usurpation of the American
Constitution that was unprecedented in the history of the American
Republic. Had it occurred in a developing country, such a
subversion of democratic process would have been greeted with
knowing derision throughout the West. What happened in America
could only be likened to a judicial coup d'état inflicted upon the
American People, Constitution, and Republic. There should now be
no doubt that the United States Supreme Court is governed by raw,
naked, brutal, power politics. Justice has nothing at all to do
with it. This Supreme Court's constitutional sophistry proved a
harbinger of the new administration's disrespect for the Rule of
Law, whether domestic or international.
Machiavelli Redux
When Bush Jr. came to power in January of 2001, he proceeded to
implement foreign affairs and defense policies that were every bit
as radical, extreme and excessive as the Reagan/Bush
administrations had starting in January of 1981. To be sure, Bush
Jr. had no popular mandate to do anything. Indeed, a majority of
the American electorate had voted for his corporate-cloned
opponent.
Upon his installation, Bush Jr.'s "compassionate conservatism"
quickly revealed itself to be nothing more than reactionary
Machiavellianism -- as if there had been any real doubt about this
during the presidential election campaign. Even the appointees to
the Bush Jr. administration were pretty much the same as the
original Reagan/Bush foreign affairs and defense "experts," many
of whom were called back into service and given promotions for
policies ten to twenty years ago that many might argue had been
crimes under international law.[1] It was déjà vû all over again,
as Yogi Berra aptly put it.
International Legal Nihilism
In quick succession the world saw the Bush Jr. administration
repudiate the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, the International
Criminal Court, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), an
international convention to regulate the trade in small arms, a
verification Protocol for the Biological Weapons Convention, an
international convention to regulate and reduce smoking, the World
Conference Against Racism, and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems
Treaty, inter alia. To date the Bush Jr. Administration has not
found an international convention that it likes. The only
exception to this rule was its shameless exploitation of the 11
September 2001 tragedy in order to get the U.S. House of
Representatives to give Bush Jr. "fast-track" trade negotiation
authority so as to present the American People and Congress with
yet another non-amendable fait accompli on behalf of American
multinationals, corporations, banks, insurance companies, the
high-tech and biotech industries, etc. The epitome of
"globalization," American-style.
More ominously, once into office the Bush Jr. administration
adopted an incredibly belligerent posture towards the Peoples'
Republic of China (PRC), publicly identifying the PRC as America's
foremost competitor/opponent into the 21st Century. Their
needlessly pugnacious approach towards the downing of a U.S. spy
plane in China with the death of a Chinese pilot only exacerbated
already tense U.S./Chinese relations. Then the Bush Jr.
administration decided to sell high-tech weapons to Taiwan in
violation of the 17 August 1982 Joint Communiqué of the USA and
PRC that had been negotiated and concluded earlier by the
Reagan/Bush administration. Finally came Bush Jr.'s breathtaking
statement that the United States would defend Taiwan in the event
of an attack by the PRC irrespective of Article I, Section 8,
Clause 11 of the United States Constitution expressly reserving to
Congress alone the right to declare war. President Jimmy Carter
had long ago terminated the U.S.-Taiwan self-defense treaty.[2]
For twelve years the Constitution and the Rule of Law -- whether
domestic or international -- never deterred the Reagan/Bush
administrations from pursuing their internationally lawless and
criminal policies around the world. The same was true for the
Clinton administration as well (such as invading Haiti; bombing
Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan, and Serbia). The Bush Jr. administration
has behaved no differently from its lineal Machiavellian
predecessors. Their bellicose handling of the 11 September 2001
tragedy was no exception to this general rule.
Indeed, the Bush Jr. administration proceeded to start its bombing
campaign on the defenseless people of Afghanistan on Sunday,
October 7 -- not allowing the Sabbath to get in their way either,
despite the fact that during the presidential election campaign
Bush Jr. proudly stated that his favorite philosopher was Jesus
Christ. Yet, as Machiavelli taught, the Prince must appear to be
"all religion,"[3] especially when he goes to war.
11 September 2001
The Bush Jr. administration's war against Afghanistan cannot be
justified on either the facts, a paucity of which have been
offered, or the law, either domestic or international. Rather, it
is an illegal armed aggression that has created a humanitarian
catastrophe for the twenty-two million people of Afghanistan and
is promoting terrible regional instability. The longer Bush Jr.'s
war against Afghanistan goes on -- and at this writing, Secretary
of Defense Rumsfeld has stated that U.S. ground troops will remain
in Afghanistan until at least the summer -- the worse it is going
to be not only for the millions of Afghan people but also in the
estimation of the 1.2 billion Muslims of the world comprising 58
Muslim states, few of whom really believe the Bush Jr.
administration's propaganda that this is not a war against Islam.
In fact, the Bush Jr. war against Afghanistan has been akin to
throwing a match into an explosives factory. Among its deleterious
results, India and Pakistan, which have already fought two wars
before over Kashmir and today are nuclear armed, are now standing
"nuclear-eyeball to nuclear-eyeball" over Kashmir. Mimicking the
Bush Administration's response to September 11th, India has
accused internal groups in Pakistan of the December 2001 attack on
the Indian parliament, and demanded, without any offer of proof
for its accusations, that Pakistan proceed against them or else
face military reprisal. The continuing conflict and armed
confrontation between India and Pakistan over Kashmir could
readily go nuclear.
The Facts
There is not and may never be conclusive proof as to who was
behind the terrible bombings in New York and Washington, D.C., on
September 11, 2001. No point would be served here by making a
detailed review of the facts that have so far emerged into the
public record. Suffice it to say that the accounts provided by the
United States government simply do not add up.
The October 3 edition of the New York Times recounted the
definitive briefing by a U.S. ambassador to NATO officials on the
alleged facts as follows:
One Western official at NATO said the briefings, which
were oral, without slides or documents, did not report
any direct order from Mr. bin Laden, nor did they
indicate that the Taliban knew about the attacks before
they happened.
A senior diplomat for one closely allied nation
characterized the briefing as containing "nothing
particularly new or surprising," adding: "It was rather
descriptive and narrative rather then forensic. There
was no attempt to build a legal case."
In other words, there was no real case against Al Qaeda, bin
Laden, and the Taliban government of Afghanistan. Such was the
conclusion of senior diplomats from friendly nations who attended
the so-called briefing.
The Powell/Blair White Paper
Secretary of State Colin Powell publicly promised that they were
going to produce a "White Paper" documenting their case against
Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda organization concerning September
11. As those of us in the Peace Movement know all too well from
previous international transgressions, these U.S. government
"White Papers" are all too frequently laden with lies, propaganda,
half-truths, dissimulation, disinformation, etc. that are usually
very easily refuted after a little bit of research and analysis.
What happened here? We never received a "White Paper" produced by
the United States government as publicly promised by Secretary
Powell, who was later overridden by President Bush Jr. What we got
instead was a so-called White Paper produced by British Prime
Minister Tony Blair. Obviously, Blair was acting as Bush Jr.'s
surrogate or, as the British press routinely referred to him,
"Bush's pet-poodle". Tony Blair is neither an elected nor an
appointed official of the U.S. government, not even an American
citizen. Conveniently, no American official could be brought to
task for or even questioned about whatever errors or inadequacies
he might purvey.
The Powell/Blair White Paper fell into that hallowed tradition of
a "White Paper" based upon insinuation, allegation, rumors,
propaganda, lies, half-truths, etc. Even unnamed British
government officials on an off-the-record basis admitted that the
case against bin Laden and Al Qaeda would not stand up in court.
As a matter of fact, the Blair/Powell White Paper was widely
derided in the British news media. There was nothing there.
The Cover-Ups
Despite the clear import of the matter, at Bush Jr.'s request the
U.S. Congress has so far decided not to empanel a Joint Committee
of the House and of the Senate with subpoena power giving them
access to whatever hard evidence they want throughout any agency
of the United States government -- including the National Security
Council, FBI, CIA, NSA, DIA -- and also to put their respective
Officials under oath to testify as to what happened and why under
penalty of perjury. Obviously a cover-up is underway for the
express purpose of not determining (1) who was ultimately
responsible for the terrible attacks of 11 September 2001; and (2)
why these extravagantly funded U.S. "intelligence" agencies were
either unable or unwilling to prevent these attacks despite
numerous warnings of a serious anti-American attack throughout the
Summer of 2001 -- and yet, amazingly, could assert the identity of
those responsible with such certainty in the space of hours
thereafter so as to preclude any serious investigation of other
possible perpetrators. For reasons not necessary to get into here,
there is also an ongoing governmental cover-up of the obvious
involvement of the Pentagon/CIA, or one of their contractors, in
the attacks inflicting U.S.-produced weapons-grade anthrax upon
those institutional components of American society that the
American right-wing has traditionally viewed with antipathy: the
Democratic Congressional leadership, and the media.
The Bin Laden Video
The so-called bin Laden Video was miraculously discovered in the
rubble of a bombed-out house in the bombed-out city of Jalalabad
by the CIA, who undoubtedly turned the Video over to the
Pentagon's Psyops People, who were operating in Afghanistan. The
Pentagon then had the tape translated by "outside" experts, one of
whom works at the Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International
Studies (SAIS), where Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz
had just been his boss as SAIS Dean. The SAIS/Wolfowitz translator
has not been giving any interviews.
The text of the translation itself admits it is not a verbatim
transcript, but only provides "messages and information flow,"
whatever that means. Admittedly the tape is disjointed and
non-sequential. Since I am not a technical expert, I will not
comment upon how easy it would be to falsify this video. I doubt
very seriously that any fair, objective and impartial judge would
admit this Video into evidence for consideration by a jury in a
criminal case.
But let us put aside for the time being the long history of U.S.
intelligence agencies operating both at home and abroad in order
to manufacture "evidence" that suits the party line coming out of
Washington, DC.[4] Let us further assume that everything in and
about the bin Laden video is true and can be authenticated to the
satisfaction of an impartial and objective international court of
justice. Even so, the bin Laden video provided no evidence that
implicated the Taliban Government of Afghanistan in the 11
September 2001 attacks upon the United States. The video provides
no justification for the United States to wage war against
Afghanistan, a UN Member State, in gross violation of the United
Nations Charter. The fact that Afghanistan's dysfunctional former
President Rabbani was left to occupy the Afghan "Seat" at the
United Nations makes no legal difference here. The United Nations
Charter protected the State of Afghanistan from aggression by the
United States. Indeed, the Clinton administration had already
negotiated with the Taliban government over letting it have the UN
Seat as well as extending it bilateral de jure recognition in
return, in part, for the construction of the UNOCAL pipeline
across Afghanistan[5] -- a negotiation from which -- ominously,
in light of the onslaught to come -- the Taliban demurred.
Framing a Response to September 11th
Terrorism and the Law
So let us now turn to the law. Immediately after the 11 September
2001 attacks President Bush's first public statement characterized
these terrible attacks as an act of terrorism. Under United States
domestic law there is a definition of terrorism, which clearly
qualifies them as such. To be sure, under international law and
practice there is no generally accepted definition of terrorism,
for reasons that are too complicated to explain in detail here but
basically relate to that hackneyed aphorism that "one person's
terrorist is another person's freedom fighter."[6] Yet certainly
under United States domestic law this qualified as an act or acts
of terrorism.
What happened? It appears that President Bush consulted with
Secretary Powell and all of a sudden they changed the rhetoric and
characterization of these terrible attacks. They now called them
an act of war -- though clearly this was not an act of war, which
international law and practice define as a military attack by one
nation state upon another nation state.
There are enormous differences and consequences, however, in how
you treat an act of terrorism compared to how you treat an act of
war. This nation and others have dealt with acts of terrorism
before. Normally acts of terrorism are dealt with as a matter of
international and domestic law enforcement -- which is, in my
opinion, precisely how these terrible attacks should have been
dealt with -- not as an act of war.
Indeed there is a treaty directly on point to which both the
United States and Afghanistan are party: the 1971 Convention for
the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil
Aviation, the so-called Montreal Sabotage Convention. Article
1(I)(b) thereof criminalizes the destruction of civilian aircraft
while in service. It has an entire legal regime specifically
designed to deal with this type of situation and all issues
related to it, including reference to the International Court of
Justice to resolve any disputes that could not be settled by
negotiations between the United States and Afghanistan or other
contracting parties. The Bush Jr. administration simply ignored
the Montreal Sabotage Convention completely, as well as the 12 or
so multilateral conventions already on the books that deal with
various components and aspects of what people generally call
international terrorism, many of which could have been used and
relied upon to handle this matter in a lawful, effective, and
peaceful manner.
The U.S. Policy Preference: Not Terrorism -- War
Instead, proving again the Bush Jr. administration's unwillingness
to utilize international conventions which might require the
submission of American power to external restraints, and thereby
constrain rather than facilitate the realization of overt or
covert American objectives, the Bush Jr. administration rejected
this entire multilateral approach and called these terrible
attacks an act of war. They deliberately invoked the rhetoric of
Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941. It was a conscious decision to
escalate the emotions and perceptions of the American people
generated on September 11th, and thus dramatically escalate the
stakes, both internationally and domestically.
The implication was that if this is an act of war, then you do not
deal with it by means of international treaties and negotiations:
You deal with an act of war by means of military force. You go to
war. So a decision was made remarkably early in the process to
ignore and abandon the entire framework of international treaties
that had been established under the auspices of the United Nations
Organization for the past 25 years in order to deal with acts of
international terrorism and instead go to war against Afghanistan,
a UN member state. In order to prevent the momentum towards war
from being impeded, Bush Jr. issued an impossible ultimatum,
refusing all negotiations with the Taliban government, as well as
all the extensive due process protections that are required
between sovereign states related to extraditions, etc. The Taliban
government's requests for proof and offers to surrender bin Laden
to a third party, similar to those which ultimately brought the
Libyan Lockerbie suspects to trial, were all peremptorily ignored.
Why such haste?
The UN Security Council Disagrees: Terrorism, not War
An act of war has a technical legal meaning: basically, a military
attack by one nation state against another nation state. While
this is what happened on December 7, 1941, it is not what happened
on September 11, 2001. Nonetheless, immediately after September
11th, the Bush Jr. administration went to the United Nations
Security Council in order to get a resolution authorizing the use
of military force against Afghanistan and Al Qaeda. They failed.
Indeed, the Security Council resolution that was adopted, instead
of calling this an "armed attack" by one state against another
state, denominated these events "terrorist attacks."[7] And again
there is a magnitude of difference between an armed attack by one
state against another state, which is an act of war, and a
terrorist attack, which is not. Again, terrorists are dealt with
as criminals. Terrorists are not treated like nation states.
Terrorists are dealt with by means of international and domestic
law enforcement. Terrorists are not given the dignity of special
status under international law and practice.
Bush Sr. v. Bush Jr.
What the Bush Jr. administration tried to do in the Security
Council was to get a resolution similar to that obtained by the
Bush Sr. administration in the run up to the Gulf War in the late
Fall of 1990. Bush Sr. got a resolution from the Security Council
authorizing UN member states to use "all necessary means" in order
to expel Iraq from Kuwait.[8] The Bush Sr. administration
originally wanted language in there expressly authorizing the use
of military force in haec verba. The Chinese objected, so the
Security Council employed the euphemism by "all necessary means,"
though everyone knew what that meant. Besides, even if it may have
been induced to do so, Iraq had actually invaded Kuwait, which was
contrary to international law -- a real act of war.[9]
The first Bush Jr. Security Council resolution, on the other hand,
provided no authority to use military force at all. That language
simply was not in there. A close reading of the Security Council
Resolution indicates that Bush Jr. tried but failed to get the
authorization to use force that Bush Sr. got. Bush Jr. was
defeated at the Security Council. This failure, of course, did not
make national headlines; rather, it was subsumed in commentary
which dwelt on a UN supposedly galvanized behind the Bush Jr.
administration to combat terrorism.
No Declaration of War from Congress
Having failed to co-opt the UN Security Council for war as his
father had, Bush Jr. then went to the United States Congress and
exploited the raw emotions of this national tragedy to ram through
a congressional authorization to use force. The exact nature of
the Bush Jr. proposal to Congress at that time is unknown.
However, reading between the lines of a public statement made by
Senator Robert Byrd that was reported in the New York Times, it
appears that Bush Jr. wanted a formal declaration of war along the
lines of what President Roosevelt got from Congress after Pearl
Harbor.[10] Congress failed to give Bush Jr. that -- and for a
very good reason. If a formal declaration of war had been passed
by Congress, it would have made Bush Jr. a "constitutional
dictator" insofar as that, basically, Americans would now all be
living under marshal law.[11] Congress might have just as well
closed up and gone home for the rest of the duration of the Bush
Jr. war against terrorism for all the difference they would have
made. Bush Jr./Sr. would have known that full well. Indeed, prior
to September 11th, President Bush Jr. had publicly opined about
becoming a U.S. "dictator."
The Infamy of Korematsu
As a direct result of that congressional declaration of war after
Pearl Harbor, America made the infamous Korematsu mistake, whereby
about 100,000 Japanese-American citizens and Japanese immigrants
were rounded up and put in concentration camps on the basis of
nothing more than an Executive Order that later on turned out to
be based upon a gross misrepresentation of the factual allegation
that Japanese in America constituted some type of unique security
threat different from Germans in America or Italians in American,
inter alia.[12] Obviously, in Korematsu race made all the
difference. Again today, race is making all the difference in the
Bush Jr. administration's specific targeting of Arabs and Muslims
from the Middle East and Southwest Asia.
Had Bush Jr. received a formal declaration of war from Congress,
many groups of American citizens could have been on the exact same
legal footing of the terrible Korematsu case, which has never been
overturned by the United States Supreme Court. We could have
witnessed the mass internment of American citizens of Arab,
Muslim, Middle Eastern, Asian, and African American (many of whom
are Muslims) descent. Instead, to date at least, the Bush Jr.
administration has been restricting itself to detaining aliens who
fit into these racial and religious categories. Of course such
discrimination violates the International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, to which the
United States is a contracting party -- yet another international
convention that the Bush Jr. administration has set at naught. And
we still could be seeing the mass detention and internment of
American citizens of whatever ethnicity who may become engaged in
civil resistance against administration policies if Bush Jr.,
Attorney General John Ashcroft, White House Counsel Alberto
Gonzales and their reactionary coterie of Federalist Society
Lawyers can ultimately get their way. They have already instigated
a nation-wide campaign of illegal profiling against the racial and
religious categories of U.S. citizens and aliens mentioned above.
Instead, A Blank Check to Use Military Force
Instead of a formal declaration of war, the U.S. Congress gave
Bush Jr. what is called a War Powers Resolution Authorization. The
War Powers Resolution of 1973 was passed over President Nixon's
veto by a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Congress, and was
expressly designed to prevent another Vietnam War.[13] Although
the resolution that Bush Jr. did get from Congress is not a formal
declaration of war, it was stronger than the Tonkin Gulf
Resolution,[14] which served as the legal pretext for President
Johnson's massive escalation of the Vietnam War into outright
genocide against the Vietnamese People. Only one courageous Member
of Congress, Barbara Lee, an African American representative from
Oakland, voted against it, as a matter of principle.
This War Powers Resolution authorization basically gives Bush Jr.
a blank check to use military force against any individual,
organization, or state that he alleges -- by means of his own ipse
dixit -- was somehow involved in the attacks on September 11th, or
else harbored those who were.[15] To date, the number of
potential targets has fluctuated from between 30 to 60 nation
states, all of which are UN Members and thus protected from U.S.
aggression by the UN Charter. In other words, Bush Jr. has
received a blank check from the United States Congress to exert
military force pretty much against any state he wants to despite
the UN Charter. This was then followed by Congress granting Bush
Jr. a $20 billion appropriation as a cash down payment on this
blank check in order to exert military force against Afghanistan,
for starters.
Bush Sr. v. Bush Jr. Redux
Let us compare and contrast this congressional resolution with the
War Powers Resolution obtained by Bush Sr. in January of 1991.
First, Bush Sr. got the Security Council resolution mentioned
above, which he took to the U.S. Congress for authorization under
the War Powers Resolution to use military force in order to carry
it out. Congress then gave Bush Sr. a very precise authorization
to use military force for the express purpose of carrying out the
Security Council resolution, that is, only for the purpose of
expelling Iraq from Kuwait.[16] And indeed that is what Bush Sr.
did. He expelled Iraq from Kuwait, stopping south of Basra, saying
that was all the authority he had. This is not to approve what
Bush Sr. did in that war, but simply to compare it with Bush Jr.
While Bush Sr. has been criticized on the grounds that he should
have marched all the way to Baghdad, he truly had no authority
from either the Security Council or from the United States
Congress to do so. Compare that to Bush Jr.'s War Powers
Resolution that basically gave Bush Jr. a blank check to use
military force against anyone he wants to, and with no more than
his asserting the need to do so. It is astounding to believe. With
such latitude, even more extensive than that of the Tonkin Gulf
Resolution, can another Vietnam War be far behind? Has one already
commenced, with direct U.S. military re-intervention into the
Philippines?
"Ending States"
At this writing, the Bush Jr. administration is publicly debating
the "wisdom" of launching yet another massive military attack upon
Iraq -- only this time for the express purpose of deposing and
replacing the Government of Iraq. Needless to say, such an
unwarranted and aggressive attack on yet another sovereign state
would violate the United Nations Charter, inter alia. Worse yet,
Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz has publicly bragged
about "ending states"[17] -- a rhetorical escalation from efforts
to designate some as "failed" states, whose institutional and
legal structures might thereby be illegally disregarded by the
United States. Terminating states, if actually carried out, would
violate the 1948 Genocide Convention, to which the United States
is a contracting party. Such a reprehensible statement by
Wolfowitz acting within the scope of his official duties could be
taken to the World Court and filed in order to prove the existence
of genocidal intent by the United States government. Indeed, there
is a good chance that the first victim of this Wolfowitz threat
may be the Republic of Iraq, which has been continuously and
illegally bombed by the United States and the United Kingdom since
the end of the Gulf War eleven years ago under the pretext of
enforcing unauthorized "no-fly zones." In this regard, Bush Jr.'s
aggressive threat to Iraq, Iran and North Korea uttered during the
course of his State of the Union Address to Congress on 29 January
2002 does not augur well. It appears from his language that the
Bush Jr. administration is deliberately preparing the ground for a
bogus claim to "anticipatory self-defense" in order to justify
their pre-planned aggression against Iraq.
Honest Nuclear War-Mongering
Since the events of September 11th, the American people may have
been treated to more truth from their government than ever before.
In the post-Vietnam era, when the notorious Phoenix program of
assassinations finally came to light, public indignation was
sufficient to empower investigation by the Church Committee, and a
subsequent ban on foreign assassinations. Over the past decade and
increasingly under the Bush Jr. administration, however, open talk
of intended foreign assassinations, efforts to overthrow the
leaders of other sovereign states, or invasions of an unspecified
array of nations can reach the daily papers through on-record
remarks by elected officials. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
can call for the apprehension of suspects "dead or alive" or even
"preferably dead" -- which would happily avoid all the legal
difficulties of proving bin Laden guilty in an evidentiary manner,
or indeed the possibility of being confronted by a range of legal
improprieties or malfeasances committed on the American side,
especially by the CIA.[18] Even the International Herald Tribune,
in its effort to convince European readerships of the longstanding
struggle of the U.S. to deal with Al Qaeda, revealed how the
comparatively temperate Clinton had signed three highly classified
Memorandums of Notification authorizing killing instead of
capturing Mr. bin Laden, then added several of Al Qaeda's senior
lieutenants to the list, and finally approved the shooting down of
private civilian aircraft on which they flew.[19]
It should come as no surprise therefore, in this onslaught of
candid revelation of Machiavellian Realpolitik, that the
historically covert intent of America's nuclear deterrence policy
should come to light through almost off-the-cuff remarks such as
those by the omnipresent Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz
appearing in the 9 January 2002 edition of the New York Times:
"We're looking at a transformation of our deterrence
posture from an almost exclusive emphasis on offensive
nuclear forces [italics added] to a force that includes
defenses as well as offenses, that includes conventional
strike capabilities as well as nuclear strike
capabilities, and includes a much reduced level of
nuclear strike capability," the deputy secretary of
defense, Paul D. Wolfowitz, said.
Well at least he was honest about it.
Wolfowitz admitted that the current U.S. practice of so-called
nuclear "deterrence" is in fact really based upon "an almost
exclusive emphasis on offensive nuclear forces." To reiterate,
since this deserves emphasis: The U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense
has publicly admitted and conceded that "almost" all U.S. nuclear
forces are really "offensive" and not really "defenses." Once
again, that Statement could be taken to the International Court of
Justice and filed against the United States government as an
Admission against Interest, Wolfowitz acting within the scope of
his official duties. Of course the Peace Movement and informed
American public knew this was true all along. Nonetheless, it
should be regarded as an ominous sign of the times that the
Pentagon has become so brazen that it is publicly admitting U.S.
nuclear criminality to the entire world.
The Prostitution of NATO
In furtherance of its quest for war-making pseudo-legitimacy, the
Bush Jr. administration also went to NATO headquarters in Brussels
to get a resolution of support for the use of force. NATO
proceeded to invoke Article 5 of the NATO Pact.[20] Article 5 of
the NATO Pact is only intended to deal with an armed attack by a
nation state or states against a NATO member state or states. It
is not, and has never been, intended to deal with a terrorist
attack.
NATO was originally organized as a collective self-defense pact
pursuant to Article 51 of the UN Charter, recognizing the right of
individual and collective self-defense in the event of an armed
attack by one nation state against another nation state. In
theory, the NATO Pact was supposed to deal with an armed attack
upon a NATO member state or states by a member or members of the
Warsaw Pact, especially the Soviet Union. But with the collapse of
the Warsaw Pact and the disintegration of the Soviet Union, there
was no real justification or excuse anymore for the continued
existence of NATO. NATO had lost its supposed raison d'être.
In an effort to keep NATO alive, Bush Sr. then tried to transmute
its very nature in order to serve two additional purposes: (1)
policing Eastern Europe; and (2) military intervention into the
Middle East in order to secure the oil and gas fields. The NATO
Council basically approved Bush Sr.'s transmutation of NATO from a
lawful collective self-defense agreement into an illegal,
offensive interventionary pact.[21] Shades of the 1939
Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact that was the necessary precursor to
Hitler's invasion of Poland, thus leading to the commencement of
World War II!
A generation later, Bush Sr. would set the political predicate for
NATO's illegal war against Serbia over Kosovo in 1999 under the
criminal leadership of President Bill Clinton. Serbia never
attacked a NATO member state; rather, the reverse was true. The
NATO Alliance attacked Serbia with no authorization from the UN
Security Council.[22] But this was what "policing" Eastern Europe
was supposed to be all about in the estimation of Bush Sr. and
Clinton. As I always asked my law students from 1991 to 2001:
Please explain to me the basic difference between Clinton and Bush
Sr.?
The main legal problem here is that the NATO Pact provides no
authorization to do this at all and indeed should have to be
amended by the parliaments of the NATO member states to justify
either policing Eastern Europe or as an interventionary force
against the Middle East. Furthermore, any such offensive mission
for NATO would also have required the express authorization of the
UN Security Council on a case-by-case basis as clearly required by
UN Charter Article 53(1). Bush Sr. and Clinton simply wanted a
useful tool for collective, offensive military intervention under
the predominant control of the United States that would provide a
thin veneer of multilateralism for domestic and international
propaganda purposes, while at the same time avoiding the
supervisory jurisdiction of the UN Security Council in accordance
with the requirements of the UN Charter. The same was true for the
Bush Jr. Leaguers in their prostitution of NATO after 11 September
2001.
Immediately thereafter, Bush Jr. simply followed in the illegal
pathway that had already been carved out for him by Bush Sr. and
Clinton. The Bush Jr. invocation of NATO Article 5 was completely
bogus. It is a matter of some irony but little surprise that the
United States, which allegedly set up NATO in order to "protect"
Europe from an armed attack by the Soviet Union, has become the
very first beneficiary of NATO's invocation of Article 5. He who
pays the piper calls the tune. Or as Clinton officials readily
admitted during their illegal NATO war against Serbia over Kosovo:
The U.S. is NATO! This seeming paradox can be resolved by
understanding that the real reason why the United States set up
NATO in the first place was to secure American control and
domination of the European Continent.[23] That still is NATO's
primary purpose, even as Europe struggles to bring into being its
own military force for collective self-defense.
Bush Jr.'s Crusade
Today the NATO Member States are readily enlisting in the Bush Jr.
holy war against international terrorism in Afghanistan, Somalia,
and other Arab and Muslim countries. We are witnessing another
medieval Crusade by the White, European, Christian colonial powers
against the 1.2 billion Muslims of the world organized into about
58 countries, most of whom are or are regarded as People of Color
in the racist European mindset, and who happen to legally own the
massive oil and natural gas resources of the Middle East, Central
Asia, and Southeast Asia that the West so desperately craves. That
is what is really going on here. And if you have any doubt,
remember that it was Bush Jr. himself who publicly called his holy
war against international terrorism a "Crusade."
Of course the Muslim World knows all about Western Crusades and
Western Crusaders. The "Clash of Civilizations" forecast by my
fellow Harvard Ph.D. graduate Samuel Huntington has received
intensive discussion in the West,[24] while the Iranian riposte
calling for "a Dialogue between Civilizations" has gone unnoticed.
The Muslim World has recently witnessed widespread extermination
of Muslim Peoples by Western Crusaders and their surrogates in
Bosnia, Chechnya, Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, and now Afghanistan.
It is almost as if the script for the Bush Sr./Jr. New World Order
had been lifted from Huntington's Clash of Civilizations.
Ominously, that ponderous tome ends with a prognosticated
catastrophic war between the United States and China -- bringing
to mind again the Bush Jr. administration's reckless hostility
towards the PRC in its earliest days.
The U.S./UN Ambassador of Death
By going to NATO, the Bush Jr. administration was attempting to
get some type of multilateral endorsement for a war against
Afghanistan after it had failed to achieve the same at the United
Nations Security Council. The Bush Jr. administration then tried
once again to get authority for war from the Security Council, but
all they got was a Presidential Statement, which legally meant
nothing. They then tried yet a third time to get some type of
authorization to use military force from the Security Council.
This time they did get stronger language but -- and it is
necessary to emphasize this, since the UN stand has not been
clearly impressed upon the American public -- they still failed to
get any authorization from the Security Council to use military
force for any reason, let alone a full scale war against
Afghanistan, a UN Member state.[25]
Then the new U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, John
Negroponte, sent a letter to the UN Security Council asserting
Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.[26] Some of us in the
Peace Movement are familiar with Negroponte, who was the U.S.
Ambassador in Honduras during the Reagan/Bush Contra Terror War
against Nicaragua, and has the blood of about 35,000 Nicaraguan
civilians on his hands -- about ten times the number of victims
from the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001. Indeed, because
of this, the only way Bush Jr. could get him confirmed by the
Senate was to ram Negroponte's name through the Senate
"confirmation" process right after the 11 September 2001 attacks.
Yet another Machiavellian exploitation of this terrible national
tragedy by George W. Bush. In an unwitting tribute to Orwell, the
Bush Jr. administration selected Negroponte to lecture the entire
world at the UN about international terrorism -- a subject upon
which he is an acknowledged expert by dint of vast personal
experience.
Nazi "Self-defense" Resurfaces
Given his "priors", the letter by Negroponte to the Security
Council was not surprising. It basically said that the United
States reserved its right to use force in self-defense against any
state that the Bush Jr. administration felt the need to victimize
in order to fight their holy war against international terrorism
as determined by themselves. Soon thereafter a reporter from the
San Francisco Chronicle asked me if there was any precedent for
the sweeping position being asserted by Negroponte that the United
States is reserving the right to go to war in self-defense against
30 to 60 other states as determined solely by the United States. I
responded that there is indeed one very unfortunate precedent,
recorded in the Nuremberg Judgment of 1946.
It was striking but not surprising that this mass murderer
Negroponte was making an argument similar to that put forth in
defense of the Nazi war criminals before the Nuremberg Tribunal
with respect to the non-applicability of the Kellogg-Briand Pact
of 1928. This "Paris Peace Pact" had formally renounced war as an
instrument of national policy. Article 1 provided: "The High
Contracting Parties solemnly 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." However, when signing the Pact, Germany entered a
reservation to the effect that it reserved the right to go to war
in self-defense as determined by itself.
So when in 1945 the Nazi war criminals were prosecuted for crimes
against peace on the basis of the Kellogg-Briand Pact, they
basically argued that the Second World War was a war of
self-defense as determined by the Nazi government, and therefore
that the Nuremberg Tribunal had no competence to determine
otherwise because of Germany's self-judging reservation. Needless
to say, the Tribunal summarily rejected this preposterous argument
and later convicted and sentenced to death several Nazi war
criminals for the commission of crimes against peace, among other
international crimes.[27] Both the United States and Afghanistan
are contracting parties to the Kellogg-Briand Pact. Article 6(a)
of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines "crimes against peace" as
follows:
(a) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation,
initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in
violation of international treaties, agreements or
assurances, or participation in a common plan or
conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the
foregoing; . . .
The Bush Jr. war against Afghanistan in violation of the
Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 and the UN Charter of 1945 constitutes
a Nuremberg Crime Against Peace. This provides yet another glaring
example of precisely why the Pentagon and Bush Jr. have so
vigorously opposed the establishment of an International Criminal
Court.
Retaliation Is Not Self-Defense
Clearly the Bush Jr. war against Afghanistan is not self-defense.
Let us be honest about it. The entire world knows it. At best it
may be vengeance, catharsis, or scapegoating. Call it what you
want, but it is not self-defense. Retaliation is never
self-defense.
Indeed, this truth had always been the official position of the
United States government, even during the darkest days of the
Vietnam War. In 1973-74, Eugene V. Rostow -- who had been
Undersecretary of State in the genocidal Johnson administration,
and was later to serve as the Director of the Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency (ACDA) in the Reagan/Bush administration (truly
Orwellian!) -- requested that the Department of State change its
policy on retaliation and reprisal. Pursuant to Rostow's request,
the State Department did look into the matter. But the State
Department concluded that there were no good grounds for the
United States government to change its longstanding policy that
retaliation and reprisal were not legitimate exercises of the
right of self-defense and, therefore, were prohibited by
international law.[28]
Choosing Violent Resolutions for International Disputes
The Taliban government of Afghanistan had made repeated offers to
negotiate a solution to the dispute over bin Laden with the United
States. Even before the tragic events of September 11th,
negotiations were going on between the United States and the
Taliban government over the disposition of bin Laden -- as well as
over the UNOCAL oil pipeline. The Taliban government had offered
to have bin Laden tried in a neutral Islamic court by Muslim
judges applying the laws of Sharia. Later on, their proposal was
modified to simply have him tried before some type of neutral
court, which would exclude handing him over to the United States
government. Finally, the Taliban government even offered to try
bin Laden themselves provided the United States gave them some
credible evidence of his involvement in the 11 September attacks,
which was never done.
Bush Jr. responded to their overtures in his 20 September 2001
Address before the U.S. Congress by ruling out any type of
negotiations and instead issuing the Taliban government an
impossible ultimatum. However, Article II of the above-mentioned
Kellogg-Briand Pact requires the peaceful resolution of
international disputes between contracting parties such as the
United States and Afghanistan, as follows:
Article II
The High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement
or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever
nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may
arise among them, shall never be sought except by
pacific means.
To the same effect are article 2(3) and article 33(1) of the
United Nations Charter:
Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the
Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance
with the following Principles.
. . . .
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.
. . . .
CHAPTER VI
PACIFIC SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES
Article 33
1. 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, inquiry, mediation, conciliation,
arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional
agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of
their own choice. . . .
Indeed, if you read the ultimatum that President Bush Jr. publicly
gave to the Taliban government of Afghanistan, no self-respecting
government in the world could have complied with that ultimatum.
Quite obviously the Bush Jr. ultimatum was specifically drafted
and publicly uttered so that it could not be complied with by the
Taliban government of Afghanistan.
Indeed, there are striking similarities between the Bush Jr.
public ultimatum to Afghanistan and the ultimatum given in private
by U.S. Secretary of State Jim Baker on behalf of Bush Sr. to
Tariq Aziz on the eve of the Bush Sr. war against Iraq. That Bush
Sr. ultimatum was deliberately designed so as not to be
acceptable, which it was not. Why? Because the Bush Sr.
administration had already made the decision to go to war against
Iraq no matter what. A similar ultimatum had been delivered to
Milosevic at Rambouillet prior to the NATO war against Serbia.
Bush Jr. thus once again, following his predecessors, trod the
path of Machiavelli when he issued his public ultimatum to the
Taliban government of Afghanistan.
It appears that the Bush Jr. administration is basically following
the same script and scenario that had already been written and
successfully carried out over a decade ago by the Bush Sr.
Leaguers when they went to war against Iraq for the primary
purpose of establishing direct American military control and
domination over the Persian Gulf oil and gas fields. Only this
time the Bushes were putting a move on the vast energy resources
of Central Asia. As is well known, the Bush Family has extensive
investments in the Oil and Gas Business, as does Vice President
Cheney, who earlier served as Bush Sr.'s Minister of War. The same
is true for other prominent Bush Jr./Sr. officials. Two major
grabs for world hegemony and family fortunes.
Humanitarian Catastrophe
Now, all that being said, what then is really going on here? If
there is no basis in fact and no basis in law for this war against
Afghanistan, why are we doing this? Why are we creating this
humanitarian catastrophe for the Afghan people? After all, it was
Bush Jr.'s threat to bomb Afghanistan that put millions of Afghans
on the move without food, clothing, housing, water, or medical
facilities. The result has been a humanitarian catastrophe for
anywhere from 5 to 7 million Afghans, particularly as the winter
approached in Afghanistan. U.S. responsibility cannot be cloaked
by the American media's incessant references to the ravages of
Afghanistan's decades-long conflicts.
Indeed, the Bush Jr. administration ordered Pakistan to close the
border with Afghanistan so that humanitarian relief supplies could
not be shipped by land to its long-suffering people. The
starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited by
Article 54(I) of Geneva Protocol I of 1977, and thus a war crime.
The so-called U.S. airlifts of food packets -- dropped at first in
yellow packets similar in color to unexploded bomblets from the
cluster bombs it also dropped -- was nothing more than an
international propaganda campaign, receiving extensive criticism
from international NGOs already working on site. The same was true
of Bush Jr.'s personal appeal to the Children of America to send
in $1 to help the Children of Afghanistan. It would have been
better to auction off the payload of one B2 Bomber.
Why War?
Why did we really bomb, attack, and invade Afghanistan? Could one
truly say it was even so human a motivation as retaliation -- or
vengeance -- or even atavistic bloodlust? No! The Bush Jr./Sr.
Leaguers are cold, calculating, and shrewd Machiavellians. They
know exactly what they are doing and why they are doing it. And
during the first two weeks of the war it became crystal clear what
their ultimate objective really was.
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld flew over to Uzbekistan and
concluded an agreement with their well-known dictator Karimov to
the effect that the United States government will protect
Uzbekistan -- irrespective of the fact that the Secretary of
Defense has no constitutional authority to conclude such an
agreement. Constitutional authority aside, the Pentagon is now in
the process of establishing a long-term military base in
Uzbekistan. That base and this war have been in the works for
quite some time. U.S. Special Forces have been over there for
several years training the Uzbekistan military.
Uzbekistan now wants a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the
United States. A SOFA permits the long-term deployment of
significant numbers of U.S. armed forces in another state. The
U.S. has SOFAs with Germany, Japan, and South Korea, inter alia,
and has had troops in all three of those countries since 1945 in
order to control them. When the U.S. gets its military base in
Uzbekistan, it will clearly not be leaving anytime soon.
It is obvious that this unconstitutional agreement between
Rumsfeld and Karimov is to set the legal predicate for America to
stay in Uzbekistan for the next 20 years or so for the alleged
purpose of defending this country from Afghanistan, where the U.S.
has deliberately created total chaos in the first place. This is
exactly the same rationale that has been made for keeping the
United States military forces deployed in the Persian Gulf for
over eleven years after the Gulf War. Indeed, planning for the
Gulf War went all the way back to the Carter administration with
its so-called Rapid Deployment Force,[29] later renamed the U.S.
Central Command that carried out the war against Iraq and still de
facto occupies these Persian Gulf countries and their oil fields.
The U.S. still retained about 20,000 troops sitting on top of the
oil and gas fields in all these countries. It even established a
separate naval fleet in Bahrain to police the Persian Gulf oil
fields. It never had any intention of leaving the Persian Gulf. It
went there to stay.
It's Still the Oil, Stupid!
Today the U.S. Central Command is executing the Pentagon's
outstanding war plan against Afghanistan and deploying U.S.
military forces to build U.S. military bases in Uzbekistan,
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kyrghyzstan, and Tajikistan. There is more
than enough evidence in the public record that the U.S. war
against Afghanistan had been planned and prepared well before 11
September 2001.[30] Clearly since at least 11 September 2001, the
world has been witnessing the formal execution of a Pentagon war
plan that had been in the works for about four years.
Why do we want military bases in Uzbekistan, Kyrghyzstan,
Tajikistan, Pakistan, and Afghanistan? Very simple: The oil and
natural gas resources of Central Asia, reported to be the second
largest deposits in the world after the Persian Gulf. Shortly
after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the ascent to
independence of its constituent states in 1991, U.S. think-tanks
and their respective "thinkers" produced all sorts of studies
about how a U.S. presence in Central Asia had suddenly become a
"vital national security interest" of the United States because of
its vast energy resources. Yet another "vital national interest"
the American public had never heard of or even dreamed about
before.
Since Central Asia is landlocked, the United States government
wanted to find a way to get the oil and natural gas out, while
avoiding Iran, Russia, and China. The easiest way to do that was
to construct a pipeline south through Afghanistan, into Pakistan
and right out to the Arabian Sea. UNOCAL had been negotiating to
do this with the Taliban government of Afghanistan for quite some
time, still with the full support of the United States government
into the summer of 2001, but their negotiations had failed. The
U.S. government then tendered a proverbial offer that could not be
refused to the Taliban government.
Just as the Persian Gulf War against Iraq was all about oil and
natural gas, this war against Afghanistan too is all about oil and
natural gas -- as well as about strategically outflanking Russia,
China, Iran, and India by establishing U.S. military bases
throughout Central Asia. The United States is going to be there
for quite some time -- at least until all that oil and natural gas
have been sucked out of Central Asia. This move into Central Asia
under the rubric of waging a non-delimited holy war against
international terrorism represents yet another major expansion of
the American Empire, deep into the sphere of influence of a former
superpower, and shoving up against distant emerging world powers
such as China and India, none of which can be counted on as
friendly to America. Imposing Pax Americana upon Central Asia may,
in the end, exemplify the limits of America's power, rather than
its range. Not only foreign populations, but the American people
themselves, will suffer from this imperial overstretch.
How Empires Rule at Home
Undoubtedly, the further expansion of the American Empire and Pax
Americana abroad will require the further imposition of an
American police state here at home. As the Romans discovered, an
Empire is incompatible with a Republic. No point would be served
here by reviewing the extensive literature that was generated
during the Vietnam War comparing the United States with the demise
of the Imperial Athenian Democracy during what Thucydides first
denominated as the "Peloponnesian War" that really extended over
27 years. Yet the Bush Jr. administration is publicly and
shamelessly promising us a war against terrorism without a
conceivable end in sight. Not even the proverbial light at the end
of the tunnel.
Bush Jr.'s Constitutional Coup D'Êtat
From the Supreme Court's installation of Bush Jr. as President to
the Ashcroft/Federalist Society post-September 11th regime of
police state "laws," the politico-legal functioning of America is
increasingly resembling that of a Banana Republic. Since September
11th, we have seen one blow against the U.S. Constitution after
another. For example, Attorney General John Ashcroft unilaterally
instituted the monitoring of attorney-client communications
despite the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches and
seizures and the Sixth Amendment right to representation by
Counsel in criminal cases. He just went ahead and did it, without
even bothering to inform anyone.
Over 1100 aliens have been picked up and "disappeared" by Ashcroft
and his Department of Injustice. The American People have no idea
where most of these people are. They are being held on the basis
of immigration law, not criminal law, for a period of detention
which has not been defined. Ashcroft proclaimed another ukaze that
these immigration proceedings must be held in secret. The
phenomenon of "enforced disappearances" is considered to be a
crime against humanity by Article 7(I)(i) of the Rome Statute for
the International Criminal Court.
It appears that many of these aliens have been deprived of their
basic human rights to consular notification and access as set
forth in the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, to
which the United States is a contracting party and which even the
U.S. State Department concedes constitutes binding customary
international law. Apparently Bush Jr.'s left hand does not care
about what his right hand does. Yet another international
convention set at naught.
The one characteristic these detained foreigners have in common is
that they are mostly Muslims, Arabs, and Asians. Everyone needs a
scapegoat for the 11 September tragedy, and it looks like we have
one, both at home and abroad. Thousands more such aliens are being
moved into the pipeline for the Ashcroft gulag by the FBI.
Ashcroft is now planning to reinstate the infamous COINTELPRO
Program, whose atrocities against the civil rights and civil
liberties of the American People have been amply documented
elsewhere.[31]
It is just a matter of time before the Bush Jr. Leaguers unleash
the newly-augmented powers of the FBI, CIA and NSA directly
against the American People. And we already have 2 million
Americans rotting away in prison -- the highest rate of
incarceration in the world, a disproportionate majority of whom
are Americans of Color, victims of the Nixon/Ford, Reagan/Bush,
and Clinton administrations' racist "war on drugs," which is
really a war against people of color.[32] The American Police
State has already arrived for people of color!
Ashcroft's Police State
This brings the analysis to the Ashcroft Police State Act. There
are no other words to describe it. While Bush failed to get a
formal declaration of war that would have rendered him a
constitutional dictator, clearly Attorney General John Ashcroft
and his right-wing Federalist Society lawyers took every piece of
regressive legislation off the shelf, tied it all into what they
called an anti-terrorism bill, and then rammed it through
Congress, giving it the appropriately Orwellian name of the U.S.A.
Patriot Act.[33] According to one report, Ashcroft's first draft
would have had Congress suspend the ancient Writ of Habeas Corpus
-- the necessary prerequisite for imposing a police state in the
United States of America. Many Members of Congress publicly
admitted that they did not even bother to read the Ashcroft Police
State Act. Another Congressman said basically: "Right, but there's
nothing new about that." Interestingly enough the so-called
liberal Democrats in the House and the Senate were willing to give
Bush Jr. and Ashcroft more police state powers than the
conservative Republicans in the House. But there are no real
differences that matter between Republicans and Democrats when it
comes to promoting America's self-proclaimed "Manifest Destiny" to
control the World and now Outer Space too.
Bush's Kangaroo Courts
It would take an entire law review article for me to analyze all
the legal and human rights problems with Bush Jr.'s proposed
military commissions. Here a cabal of Federalist Society Lawyers
in the White House got President Bush to sign a Presidential Order
on 13 November 2001 which, when implemented, will be widely
recognized to constitute a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions
and establish a prima facie case of criminal accountability
against the President himself. It is emblematic of this particular
war that right towards its very outset President George W. Bush
personally incriminated himself under both international criminal
law and United States domestic criminal law. The Bush Jr.
administration has severely undermined the integrity of the Four
Geneva Conventions of 1949. By doing this, the Bush Jr.
administration has opened up U.S. Armed Forces and civilians
around the world to similar reprisals, which has already happened.
As a licensed attorney for 25 years, a law professor for 23 years
and someone who has done a good deal of criminal defense work in
U.S. Federal Courts, I am opposed to the insinuation of these
Federalist Society Lawyers that America's Federal Courts
established by Article III of the U.S. Constitution cannot hold
accountable those responsible for the crimes of 11 September 2001.
This is an insult to all Federal Judges, Federal Prosecutors,
Federal Public Defenders and all the Lawyers who are Officers of
these Courts.
In one fell stroke these Federalist Society lawyers have
besmirched and undermined the integrity of two Branches of the
United States Federal Government established by the Constitution
-- the Presidency and the Judiciary. So far the U.S. Congress has
supinely gone along with the Bush Jr. police state agenda. If and
when these Bush/Ashcroft police state practices make their way to
the U.S. Supreme Court, many of them will probably be upheld.
After all, a 5 to 4 majority of the Supreme Court already gave the
Presidency to Bush Jr. We need to seriously consider whether they
would strike down laws and practices that would give Bush Jr. a
Police State as well.
Philosophers have taught that a People get the type of government
they deserve. If the American People permit the Bush Jr. Leaguers
to impose a Police State at home in the name of furthering Pax
Americana abroad, we will have deserved it by abnegating our
responsibilities as Citizens living in what is supposed to be a
constitutional Republic with a commitment to the Rule of Law. The
same thing happened to the Romans and to the Athenians. The United
States of America is not immune to the laws of history. Sic
transit gloria mundi!
The Bush Jr. Withdrawal from the ABM Treaty
Then, as had been foreshadowed, whispered, hinted at and finally
broadcast over a period of months, came the monumentally insane,
horrendous, and tragic announcement on 13 December 2001 by the
Bush Jr. administration to withdraw from the ABM Treaty, effective
within six months. Of course it was sheer coincidence that the
Pentagon released the bin Laden Video just as Bush Jr. himself
publicly announced his indefensible decision to withdraw from the
ABM Treaty in order to pursue his phantasmagorical National
Missile Defense (NMD) Program, the lineal successor to the
Reagan/Bush Star Wars dream. Predictably, the bin Laden video
back-staged this major, pro-nuclear announcement. Once again the
terrible national tragedy of 11 September was shamelessly
exploited in order to justify a reckless decision that had already
been made for other reasons long before then. Then on 25 January
2002, the Pentagon promptly conducted a sea-based NMD test in
gross violation of Article 5(I) of the ABM Treaty without waiting
for the required six months to expire, thus driving a proverbial
nail into the coffin of the ABM Treaty before its body was legally
dead.
The Bush Jr. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, which was originally
negotiated by those well-known Realpolitikers Richard Nixon and
Henry Kissinger,[34] threatens the very existence of other
seminal arms control treaties and regimes such as the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the Biological Weapons
Convention, which have similar withdrawal clauses. The prospect of
yet another round of the multilateral and destabilizing nuclear
arms race now stares humanity directly in the face, even as the
Bush Jr. administration today prepares for the quick resumption of
nuclear testing at the Nevada test site in outright defiance of
the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty CTBT regime and NPT Article VI.
The entire edifice of international agreements regulating,
reducing, and eliminating weapons of mass extermination (WME) has
been shaken to its very core. Now the Pentagon and the CIA are
back into the dirty business of researching, developing and
testing biological weapons and biological agents that are clearly
prohibited by the Biological Weapons Convention and its U.S.
domestic implementing legislation, the Biological Weapons
Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989.[35]
Conclusion/Prologue
This book comes at a critical time in American history: when an
expansionist American administration not only endangers the past
century's momentous achievements in international treaty law by
crashing through them, but also threatens the very fabric of
domestic rights and freedoms cherished by American citizens
enshrined in the Rule of Law and the U.S. Constitution
itself.[36]
Despite the best efforts by the Bush Jr. Leaguers to the contrary,
we American Citizens still have our First Amendment Rights:
Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Association, Freedom of Assembly,
Freedom to Petition our Government for the Redress of these
massive Grievances, Civil Resistance, etc. We are going to have to
start vigorously exercising all of our First Amendment Rights
right now; we must use them or indeed, as the saying goes, we will
lose them. We must act -- not only for the good of the People of
Afghanistan, for the good of the Peoples of Southwest Asia -- but
for our own future, that of our children, that of our nation as a
democratic society committed to the Rule of Law and the U.S.
Constitution, and for all Humanity.
This book is written for the members of the global anti-nuclear
movement: concerned members of the public from all walks of life
who want to eliminate the accelerating danger nuclear weapons pose
to humanity's physical existence, as well as the challenge their
threatened use poses to the political freedom of all peoples
worldwide. It was also written for the NGO community, especially
those NGOs working against nuclear weapons and nuclear power,
against weapons in space, and for nuclear disarmament, large
numbers of which I have advised, counseled, represented and worked
with over the years -- including and especially the Plowshares
Movement.
This book will give the reader the intellectual tools necessary to
battle the nuclear nihilism of the Bush Jr. administration, the
U.S. Nuclear Power Elite, and the U.S. Nuclear Empire -- hopefully
before they run completely amok. It sets forth a comprehensive
analysis of nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence from an
international law perspective. The basic argument is that nuclear
weapons and nuclear deterrence are criminal under well-recognized
principles of international law. Generally speaking, this author
has been recognized as the foremost proponent of this position in
the legal profession. Moreover, I have successfully established
the criminality of nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence during
the past 20 years that I have been engaged in defending
anti-nuclear resisters around the world.
Just recently, this argument was validated by the Scottish Sheriff
Margaret Gimblett at Greenock, Scotland who directed a verdict in
favor of the Trident Plowshares 2000 Anti-Nuclear Resisters who
were facing charges of criminal damage to Britain's Trident II
nuclear weapons fleet, stating when she ruled: "I listened very
carefully to Professor Boyle and have taken into account all the
evidence in this case from him." This author has achieved the best
track record in the world on getting such anti-nuclear acquittals
by applying my analysis concerning the criminality of nuclear
weapons and nuclear deterrence that is set forth herein. The
Greenock directed-verdict was a monumental ruling in the battle
against nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence. This book provides
the reader with an extensive analysis of the legal theories that
enabled us to win such a significant victory against nuclear
deterrence and nuclear weapons. Indeed, portions of this book were
read by the Greenock protesters before they acted, and the
manuscript for this book was used to put together the Greenock
defense. Large numbers of Plowshares anti-nuclear resisters and
their lawyers have also drawn upon it.
In light of the Bush Jr. administration's proven nuclear nihilism
and its global military adventurism, humanity needs to galvanize
such anti-nuclear activism all around the world, and especially
within the nuclear weapons states themselves. This book has been
written and published for precisely this purpose.
1 February, 2002
Notes
1. See Francis A. Boyle, Defending Civil Resistance Under
International Law (1987).
2. See Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996 (1979).
3. See Nicolo Machiavelli, The Prince 149 (Mark Musa trans. &
ed. 1964): " . . . all religion. And nothing is more
essential than to appear to have this last quality."
4. See, e.g., William Blum, Killing Hope (1995). See also
William Blum, Rogue State (2000). (www.killinghope.org and
http://members.aol.com/superogue/homepage.htm)
5. See Ahmed Rashid, Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil, and
Fundamentalism in Central Asia (2000).
6. See Francis A. Boyle, World Politics and International Law
75-167 (1985); Francis A. Boyle, The Future of International
Law and American Foreign Policy 79-112 (1989).
7. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1368 (12 Sept. 2001),
Threats to international peace and security caused by
terrorist acts.
8. U.N. Security Council Resolution 678 (29 Nov. 1990),
Iraq-Kuwait.
9. See Ramsey Clark, The Fire This Time (1992).
10. See Adam Clymer, "Senator Byrd Scolds Colleagues for Lack of
Debate After Attack", N.Y. Times, Oct. 2, 2001.
11. See Arthur S. Miller, Presidential Power in a Nutshell (1977).
12. See Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944).
13. The War Powers Resolution, 50 U.S.C.A. §§ 1541-1548 (1973).
14. H.J. Res. 1145 (7 Aug. 1964).
15. Public Law No. 107-40 (18 Sept. 2001).
16. Public Law No. 102-1 (14 Jan. 1991).
17. See, e.g., Bill Keller, "The World According to Powell", N.Y.
Times, Nov. 25, 2001.
18. See John K. Cooley, Unholy Wars (2d ed. 2000, 3d ed. 2002).
19. International Herald Tribune, Online Edition, Dec. 9, 2001.
20. Statement by the North Atlantic Council, Press Release (2001)
124 (12 Sept. 2001).
21. See NATO Press Communiqué S-1(91) 86, Rome Declaration on
Peace and Cooperation (8 Nov. 1991).
22. See Noam Chomsky, The New Military Humanism (1999); Noam
Chomsky, Rogue States (2000).
23. See Noam Chomsky, What Uncle Sam Really Wants (1992).
24. See Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the
Remaking of World Order (1996).
25. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1373 (28 Sept. 2001),
Threats to international peace and security caused by
terrorist acts .
26. S/2001/946 (7 Oct. 2001), 40 I.L.M. 1281 (2001).
27. See Boyle, Future of International Law and American Foreign
Policy, supra, at 87-88.
28. Id. at 240-42.
29. See Boyle, World Politics and International Law, supra, at 215-17.
30. See, e.g., BBC Online Edition, Sept. 18, 2001.
31. See M. Wesley Swearingen, FBI Secrets (1995).
32. See Alexander Cockburn & Jeffrey St. Clair, Whiteout (1998).
33. Public Law No. 107-56.
34. See Gerard Smith, Doubletalk (1980).
35. See Judith Miller, Stephen Engelberg & William Broad, Germs (2001).
36. See Francis A. Boyle, Foundations of World Order (1999).
References:
* Author Biography - Francis A.Boyle
As a leading American professor, practitioner and advocate of
international law, Francis A. Boyle is uniquely qualified to address
the issue of nuclear deterrence. Twenty years of anti-nuclear advocacy
have earned him what may be the world's best track record for
anti-nuclear acquittals. Recently, his testimony persuaded a Scottish
Judge in the UK to direct a verdict against the UK Trident 2. Through
his exacting international legal analysis, prolific writings and
tireless advocacy, he has succeeded in establishing the illegality of
nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence, reflected in the recent World
Court Advisory Opinion of 1996.
Francis A. Boyle's long, distinguished and multi-faceted career
has included: responsibility for drafting the Biological Weapons
Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the American implementing legislation for
the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention; lecturing on nuclear weapons
and international law to the U.S. military at West Point and to Soviet
and foreign lawyers through two lecture tours sponsored by the Lawyers'
Committee on Nuclear Policy and the Association of Soviet Lawyers; and
representing the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina before the
International Court of Justice (1993-94), where he won two World Court
Orders against Yugoslavia to cease and desist from committing all acts
of genocide.
Boyle has also served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty
International (1988-1992); as Legal Advisor to the Palestine Liberation
Organization on the Creation of the State of Palestine (1987-89) and to
the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East Peace Negotiations
(1991-93), and as a Consultant to the American Friends Service
Committee.
Professor Boyle teaches International Law at the University of
Illinois, Champaign, and is author, inter alia, of Foundations of World
Order: The Legalist Approach to International Relations 1898-1921 (Duke
Univ. Press, 1999), The Bosnian People Charge Genocide: Proceedings at
The International Court of Justice Concerning Bosnia v. Serbia On The
Prevention and Punishment of The Crime Of Genocide (Northampton, MA:
Aletheia, 1996), Nuclear Proliferation and The Legality of Nuclear
Weapons, edited by William M. Evan, (Lanham, MD: University Press of
America, 1995), Ideas & Ideals: Essays on Politics In Honor of Stanley
Hoffmann, edited by Linda B. Miller & Michael Joseph Smith (Boulder,
CO: Westview Press, 1993), More Than 50,000 Nuclear Weapons: Analyses
Of The Illegality Of Nuclear Weapons Under International Law (Francis
A. Boyle et al., Northampton, MA: Aletheia Press, 1991), The Future of
International Law and American Foreign Policy (Transnational
Publishers, 1989), Defending Civil Resistance Under International Law
(Dobbs Ferry, NY: Transnational Publishers, 1987), and World Politics
and International Law (Duke Press Policy Studies, 1985). He holds a
Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude as well as a Ph.D. in Political Science
from Harvard University.
* Book Summary: The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence - Could The US War
On Terrorism Go Nuclear?, by Francis A. Boyle, ISBN: 0-932863-33-7,
US$14.95.
Following U.S. unilateral abrogation of the ABM Treaty, the entire
edifice of international agreements regulating, reducing, and
eliminating weapons of mass extermination has been shaken to its very
core. The prospect of yet another round of the multilateral and
destabilizing nuclear arms race now stares humanity directly in the
face. The resumption of nuclear testing in outright defiance of the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty regime and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty, Article VI might soon begin.
As the U.S. War on Terrorism hurtles into uncharted waters,
challenging accepted norms of international law and setting a pattern
for peremptory state behavior, could a nuclear strike against a
non-nuclear "rogue state" become an American option? Could conflicts
between other nuclear states such as India and Pakistan go nuclear?
The Clinton Administration's Presidential Decision Directive 60
asserted a U.S. right to target non-nuclear states with nuclear weapons
in 1997. But PDD60, as well as nuclear deterrence as a whole -- both
the use and threatened use of nuclear weapons -- is illegal under the
international law of warfare.
In fact, Francis A. Boyle argues in The Criminality of Nuclear
Deterrence, the Bush administration's toying with the use of tactical
nuclear weapons in Afghanistan, its intent to proceed with National
Missile Defense, to renew nuclear testing and develop "bunker-busting"
nuclear weapons will have a disastrous impact on existing international
efforts to rein in the global nuclear arms race through the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and the Nuclear Non-proliferation
Treaty. Already, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty has fallen before
its scythe.
This book provides a succinct and detailed guide to understanding
the arms race from Hiroshima/Nagasaki through the SALT I, SALT II, ABM
and START efforts at arms control, to Star Wars/National Missile
Defense, U.S. unilateral abrogation of the ABM Treaty, and events in
Afghanistan and beyond.
It clarifies the relevant international law, from the Hague
Conventions through the Nuremberg Principles to the recent World Court
Advisory Opinion, as well as tracing contradictions in and
contraventions of domestic guidelines established in the U.S. Army
Field Manual of 1956 on The Law of Land Warfare, which remains the
official primer for U.S. military personnel concerning the laws of war
to which they must regard themselves as subject.
More disturbingly, Boyle reviews the intricacies of the foreign
policy controversies and objectives which mark the development of
American nuclear policy, often pressed forward by civilian
administrations seeking to promote their geopolitical agenda over the
advice and desires of the American military itself.
This book is an effective tool and a "must read" for the burgeoning
anti-nuclear and peace movements, church groups, and lawyers defending
anti-nuclear resisters. It should also prove instructive for the
diplomatic community, and for civilian and military personnel who frame
and carry out America's nuclear policies, who more than any must weigh
the possibility of being summoned one day before an international war
crimes tribunal. The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence by Francis A.
Boyle, foreword by Philip Berrigan, will give the reader the
intellectual tools necessary to battle the U.S. nuclear empire. A
special introduction, "George Bush, Jr., September 11th and the Rule of
Law" clarifies the illegal and dangerous trajectory of the present
Bush, Jr. administration.
* G.W.Bush Was Never Elected President
Conyers Releases First Fifty-State Survey of Election Irregularities,
and Executive Summary
http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/electioncommreptpr73101.pdf
How To Make Over One Million Votes Disappear:
Electoral Sleight Of Hand In The 2000 Presidential Election (122
pages), A Fifty-State Report Prepared for Rep. John Conyers, Jr.,
Ranking Member, House Committee on the Judiciary, Dean, Congressional
Black Caucus, Democratic Investigative Staff, House Committee on the
Judiciary, August 20, 2001.
http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/electionreport.pdf
Bush v. Gore: A Resolution of Censure
http://www.censurethefive.org/
The Supreme Court Five Censure Campaign, including
"A Draft Resolution of Congressional Censure Against United States
Supreme Court Justices Kennedy, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas
for Their Betrayal of the American People and the United States
Constitution Displayed in the Decisions of Bush v. Gore"
http://www.censurethefive.org/counts.html
http://www.censurethefive.org/resolution.pdf
* United States Constitution
Presentation version by FindLaw - Law, Lawyers and Legal Professionals:
http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/constitution/
Presentation version by National Archives & Records Administration (NARA):
http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/constitution/conmain.html
Presentation version by Emory University School of Law
http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst.html
ARTICLE III: The Judicial Branch
http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst/art-3.html#sec-1
Bill of Rights
http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/BillOfRights.html
* International Criminal Court
http://www.icc-cpi.int/
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 17 July 1998
http://www.un.org/law/icc/
Article 7(I)(i)
http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/99_corr/2.htm#art.7
Know The Truth About The International Criminal Court
by Benjamin B Ferencz, prosecutor at the Nuremberg war crimes trials,
July 2002
http://www.benferencz.org/julynews.htm
* Hiroshima Peace Site including Memorial Museum
http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/peacesite/indexE.html
* At the Federation of American Scientists:
o Anti Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty
http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/abmt/
o Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/
o Biological Weapons Convention
http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/bwc/
o Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)
http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/ctbt/
o Star Wars
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/
o National Missile Defense
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/nmd/
* Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989
http://www.sunshine-project.org/bwintro/uscode.html
* Crimes Against Humanity on ratical includes sections on:
o Afghanistan
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/cahAfghan.html
o Martial Law
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/cahML.html
o Iraq
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/cahIraq.html
o Imposition of a Police State in America
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/cahPS.html
* Responsibility for the terrorist atrocities in the United States,
4 October 2001
Note the preamble to the Powell/Blair White Paper explicitly
acknowledges the case against bin Laden and Al Qaeda would not stand up
in court.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/linkscopy/page3554.html
* Charter of the United Nations, 26 June 1945
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/unchart.htm
Article 2
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/unchart.htm#art2
Article 33
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/unchart.htm#art33
Article 51
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/unchart.htm#art51
Article 53
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/unchart.htm#art53
* Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of
Civil Aviation, 23 September 1971
http://www.jurisint.org/pub/01/en/doc/213_1.htm
* International Court of Justice (also referred to as The World Court)
http://www.icj-cij.org/
World Court Advisory Opinion:
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (1994-1996)
http://212.153.43.18/icjwww/icases/iunan/iunanframe.htm
* U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 - The Law of Land Warfare (1956)
http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/~nstanton/FM27-10.htm
* Wartime and the Bill of Rights:
The Korematsu Case, Constitutional Rights Foundation
http://www.crf-usa.org/terror/korematsu.htm
* Hundreds Are Detained After Visits to INS
Thousands protest arrests of Mideast boys and men who complied with
order to register, by Megan Garvey, Martha Groves and Henry Weinstein,
Los Angeles Times, 19 December 2002
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1219-09.htm
George W Bush's America
Civil Rights Groups Protest Detentions of Middle Eastern Men in US,
Agence France Presse, 20 December 2002
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1220-01.htm
* International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination, 4 Jan 1969
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/d1cerd.htm
* The War Powers Resolution, Public Law 93-148, 7 November 1973
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/warpower.htm
http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/warpower/
* The Federalist Society: From Obscurity to Power - The Right-Wing
Lawyers Who Are Shaping The Bush Administration's Decisions On Legal
Policies and Judicial Nominations,
by People For the American Way Foundation, Aug 2001
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/feddieSoc.html
The Federalist Society - The Conservative Cabal That's Transforming
American Law, by Jerry Landay, The Washington Monthly, March 2002
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0003.landay.html
Federalist Society: Hijacking Justice, by George E. Curry & Trevor W.
Coleman, Emerge, 10/99
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/hijakjustice.html
* Tonkin Gulf Resolution, H.J. RES 1145, 7 August 1964
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/tonkin-g.htm
* Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,
9 December 1948
http://www.preventgenocide.org/law/convention/
* U.S. Bombing Watch: When was the last time the U.S. Bombed Iraq?
A service of the Colorado Campaign for Middle East Peace, Denver
http://www.ccmep.org/us_bombing_watch.html
* Operation Phoenix / The Phoenix Program
Flight of the Phoenix: From Vietnam to Homeland Security
An Open Letter to Maj. Gen. Bruce Lawlor
by Douglas Valentine, CounterPunch, 25 August 2002
http://www.counterpunch.org/valentine0824.html
Homeland Insecurity Part Two: Phoenix And The Anatomy Of Terror
by Douglas Valentine, CounterPunch, 8 November 2001
http://www.counterpunch.org/homeland2.html
Vietnam's Phoenix Program, by Ralph McGehee, 1996
http://www.vwip.org/articles/m/McGeheeRalph_VietnamsPhoenixProgram.htm
* From the Church Committee reports, see
Final Report of the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations
with Respect to Intelligence Activities of the United States Senate,
94th Congress, 2nd Session, 1976:
o Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans, Book II
o Supplementary Detailed Staff Reports on Intelligence Activities
and the Rights of Americans, Book III
http://www.derechos.net/paulwolf/cointelpro/cointel.htm#ChurchComRpts
Hearings Before the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations
with Respect to Intelligence Activities of the United States Senate,
94th Congress, 2nd Session, 1975:
o Volume 5: The National Security Agency and Fourth Amendment Rights
http://cryptome.org/nsa-4th.htm
* The North Atlantic Treaty, 4 April 1949
http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm
Article 5
http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm#Art05
* Treaty of Nonaggression Between Germany and the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics, 23 August 1939
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/nonagres.htm
Secret Additional Protocol, on spheres of influence in Eastern Europe
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/addsepro.htm
* Kosovo War Is Illegal, Representative Ron Paul (TX), Congressional
Record, 5 May 1999
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec99/cr050599-5min.htm
* The Clash of Civilizations, by Samuel Huntington, Foreign Affairs, 1993
http://www.alamut.com/subj/economics/misc/clash.html
International Centre for Dialogue Among Civilizations
http://www.dialoguecentre.org/
* Letter of John Negroponte to the President of the Security Council,
7 October 2001
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/sept_11/un_006.htm
* Nuremberg Tribunal Judgment of the International Military Tribunal
for the Trial of German Major War Criminals, 30 September and
1 October 1946
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/judcont.htm
* Nuremberg War Crimes Trials - The International Military Tribunal for
Germany, 1945
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/imt.htm
* Nuremberg Charter of the International Military Tribunal, 8 August 1945
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/imtconst.htm
Article 6 (a) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/imtconst.htm#art6
* Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the
Nuremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal, International
Law Commission, United Nations, 1950
http://www.un.org/law/ilc/texts/nurnfra.htm
* Kellogg-Briand Pact, 27 August 1928
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/kbpact/kbpact.htm
Article I
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/kbpact/kbpact.htm#art1
Article II
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/kbpact/kbpact.htm#art2
* Numerous sources indicate the U.S. planned war in Asia before 9/11/01
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/AOPof911p14.html#fn78
* Hague Conventions of 1907:
Hague I - Pacific Settlement of International Disputes: 18 Oct 1907
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/pacific.htm
Hague II - Limitation of Employment of Force for Recovery of Contract
Debts: 18 Oct 1907
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague072.htm
Hague III - Opening of Hostilities: 18 Oct 1907
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague03.htm
Hague IV - Laws and Customs of War on Land: 18 Oct 1907
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague04.htm
Hague V - Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of
War on Land: 18 Oct 1907
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague05.htm
Hague VI - Status of Enemy Merchant Ships at the Outbreak of
Hostilities: 18 Oct 1907
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague06.htm
Hague VII - Conversion of Merchant Ships into War Ships: 18 Oct 1907
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague07.htm
Hague VIII - - Laying of Automatic Submarine Contact Mines: 18 Oct 1907
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague08.htm
Hague IX - Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War: 18 Oct 1907
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague09.htm
Hague X - Adaptation to Maritime War of the Principles of the Geneva
Convention: 18 Oct 1907
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague10.htm
Hague XI - Restrictions With Regard to the Exercise of the Right of
Capture in Naval War: 18 Oct 1907
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague11.htm
Hague XIII - Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War:
18 Oct 1907
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague13.htm
Draft Rules of Aerial Warfare - The Hague, February 1923
http://www.dannen.com/decision/int-law.html#C
* Geneva Conventions of 1949:
Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and
Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, August 12, 1949
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva05.htm
Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick
and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, August 12, 1949
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva06.htm
Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War; August
12, 1949
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm
Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time
of War, August 12, 1949
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva07.htm
* Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and
relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts
(Protocol I), 8 June 1977
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/GenevaPI1977.html
Article 54(I)
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/GenevaPI1977.html#art54
* Name the Detainees, by Senator Russell Feingold, Washington Post, 23
December 2001
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1223-01.htm
* Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 24 April 1963
http://www.un.org/law/ilc/texts/consul.htm
* COINTELPRO, the FBI's domestic "counterintelligence programs"
to neutralize political dissidents
http://www.cointel.org/
* Imbalance of Powers: How Changes to U.S. Law & Policy Since 9/11 Erode
Human Rights and Civil Liberties, September 2002 to March 2003, Lawyers
Committee for Human Rights, 11 March 2003
http://www.lchr.org/us_law/loss/loss_main.htm
http://www.lchr.org/us_law/loss/imbalance/powers.pdf
A Year of Loss, Reexamining Civil Liberties since September 11, 1
September 2002
http://www.lchr.org/pubs/descriptions/loss_report.pdf
Since September 11th - A Chronology of the Government's Restrictions on
Civil Liberties,
September 2001 to November 2002
http://www.lchr.org/us_law/loss/timeline/timeline.pdf
* United States "PATRIOT Act"
aka "House Resolution 3162", aka Public Law No. 107-56, 26 October 2001
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/USAPA.html
The USA PATRIOT Act Was Planned Before 9/11, by Jennifer Van Bergen,
truthout, 20 May 2002
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/PAplndbefore.html
* Directives Governing Military Commissions,
information compiled by American Friends Service Committee, 22 March 2002
http://www.afsc.org/nomore/miltribunals.pdf
Fact Sheet: Dept. of Defense Order on Military Commissions, 21 March 2002
President Issues Military Order
Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War
Against Terrorism, 13 November 2001
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/print/20011113-27.html
US NGO Statements
* Trident Ploughshares - Greenock 1999,
Sheriff Gimblett's Report on the Greenock Trial, 21 August 2000
http://www.tridentploughshares.org/greenock/largimb.html
Ploughshares Movement
http://www.tridentploughshares.org/html/ploughs.html
* Presidential Decision Directive 60
http://www.inesap.org/bulletin15/bul15art16.htm
* Secret Plan Outlines the Unthinkable
A secret policy review of the nation's nuclear policy puts forth
chilling new contingencies for nuclear war, by William M. Arkin, Los
Angeles Times, 10 Mar 2002
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0309-04.htm
* Broadening Our Perspectives of 11 September 2001, by David T. Ratcliffe,
September 2002
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/AOPof911toc.html
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/CrimNukDetSI.html (hypertext)
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/CrimNukDetSI.txt (text only)
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/CrimNukDetSI.pdf (print ready)
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/CrmNukDetSI.ps.gz (print ready)