This article series explains what happened when I interacted with participants of a 9/11 event to welcome home US soldiers and honor the victims of 9/11, then provides the e-mail exchange with the sponsoring group’s leadership.
Consistent with my last two years of writing articles to explain, document, and prove current US wars aren’t even close to lawful and all based on lies, nobody at this event of mostly current and former US military could defend current US wars as lawful, even in subsequent e-mails and in their consultation with the group’s “Constitutionalist.” I challenge anyone to explain, document, and prove in the comments section below that US war in Afghanistan, Iraq, and/or Iran is legal (you can put what you say in more than one comment). I will likely demand anyone making such argument to refute my longer explanation of US war law that I will reference in my comment responses from my article, “Open proposal to US higher education.”
I encourage anyone with passion to end unlawful US wars to take my article’s “emperor has no clothes” obvious explanation and documentation of US war law to act with confidence to end US wars. Our soldiers’ response to their Oath of Enlistment to support and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, is to refuse all orders of unlawful wars.
This article series’ sections:
- Introduction, what happened at the event, and my first e-mail to the event sponsors.
- E-mails from group leaders, who I’ll name, “Tom,” “Dick,” and “Harry” (I’ll forward them the article; they can identify themselves if they choose). Tom and Dick go on the offensive.
- E-mail continuation: My response to Dick, their “Constitutionalist” says this issue is a waste of time. Tom responds.
- E-mail continuation: attempting to reach Tom with reason
- E-mail conclusion with Tom.
- A possible addendum should event organizers wish to respond.
* * * * *
Part 1: Introduction and what happened at the event
The Lafayette Flag Brigade sponsored a 9/11 event at the El Curtola Bridge to welcome home US veterans and honor victims of 9/11. I attended with half-page flyers (see below) that explained how current US wars are unlawful to discover if my historical and legal expertise could be helpful. I understood, however, the irony that any information contrary to peoples’ conservative beliefs, no matter how grounded in facts anyone can easily verify, would likely be scornfully rejected.
I attended in good faith discovery without intention to write an article. However, their group members’ e-mails communicated such a stunning lack of intellectual curiosity and integrity for facts, hateful attack of someone presenting important facts, and lack of moral courage to take an obvious action to protect our soldiers and their families from unlawful war, that I was inspired to write.
Readers, these communications reveal the Orwellian reality that allows obvious unlawful wars to continue under paper-thin propaganda. These communications are revealing to understand how US citizens who otherwise are polite, hard-working, and well-intended Americans blindly believe patriotic rhetoric and then reject even “emperor has no clothes” facts explained and documented by a professional educator. This is a bipartisan problem: Democrats have not yet recognized that President Obama and Democratic “leadership” have continued these wars under their Congressional control since January 2007. In truth, Dems could have ended the wars immediately by pointing out the facts within this article and communicated by hundreds of independent writers.
I arrived on 9/11 at 4:30 pm for the 4:00 – 8:00 PM event, walked across the flag-lined Bridge to the sound of car horns voicing drivers’ approval passing along the California 24 Freeway below. About 100 people were assembled. Well-designed and large photo displays of 9/11 and previously-honored returning military veterans were attached to fences and displays. There were booths for Marine recruitment, a gentleman selling books of his father’s WW2 experience, a place to write current US soldiers a postcard, and a food booth (with free food for US soldiers and vets).
In my gray suit and white dress shirt with Liberty Bell tie, I took-in the atmosphere of the event. The people there seemed typical of US political conservatives: genuinely caring of our soldiers and families, wanting what’s best for the US, but literally retarded in their citizenry from their belief in paper-thin war propaganda. Their genuine love and support of US soldiers and their families stands in tragic-comic contradiction to their inability to understand the one war law that was won by the veterans and their families in World Wars 1 and 2. They embody what Benjamin Franklin predicted would happen to Americans:
On September 18, 1787, just after signing the US Constitution, Benjamin Franklin met with members of the press. He was asked what kind of government America would have. Franklin: “A republic, if you can keep it.” In his speech to the Constitutional Convention, Franklin admonished: “This [U.S. Constitution] is likely to be administered for a course of years and then end in despotism… when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.” The Quotable Founding Fathers, pg. 39.
My first stop was the US Marine recruiter; he was chatting with a father of a current US soldier. After pleasantries, I asked the Marine, “Have you been trained to answer if the current US wars are lawful or not?” At first, he was confused and answered that all US soldiers are trained to not commit War Crimes; that is, conduct themselves lawfully in war. When I explained the difference between lawful conduct in war and whether or not the war is lawful, the Marine understood but seemed genuinely puzzled as if he never before considered the question. He answered he hadn’t; and with follow-up also said he had never received that question. The father understood my point quickly and visibly stiffened in discomfort. I briefed the two on US war law; similar to the information on this flyer that I brought:
5,000+ American soldiers dead from unlawful US wars; 9/11 is a crime manipulated into Wars of Aggression
Can you state the one US law that determines if a war is lawful or unlawful? If not, you don’t know if current US wars are lawful or not, and any opinion you have on this essential question is unsubstantiated. I live in Orinda; I teach college-level government classes, and have over 250 published articles read by over a million readers. Search “Open proposal to US higher education” for my article to explain, document, and prove beyond any doubt that current US wars are unlawful.
The UN Charter has legal treaty status and listed as such in the State Department’s “Treaties in Force” annual publication. The UN Charter has only one area of legal authority: governance of nations’ use of force to prevent the scourge of war (many people are confused about the UN; all other work they do is advisory and only applicable upon formal acceptance of interested nations’ legislatures). The UN restriction of use of force by one nation upon another is a narrow legal definition of self-defense, similar to its meaning for you or me on the street, until the UN Security Council (UNSC) acts. After 9/11, UNSC issued two resolutions of jurisdiction calling for international cooperation to discover, arrest, and prosecute the criminals involved in that act of terror. The US demanded extradition of bin Laden from the Afghan government as a criminal suspect; the Afghan government accepted upon standard legal protocol of providing evidence of any person’s involvement in a crime. The US refused, attacked, and invaded, in direct violation of the UNSC. Iraq was under a UNSC Resolution for a ceasefire. When the US couldn’t get the votes for use of force from UNSC and while Iraq was completing inspections for alleged WMD, the US attacked and invaded, again violating the UNSC. The October 2002 NIE explicitly stated that all 16 US intelligence agencies concluded that Iraq posed no national security threat to the US with the specific biological and chemical weapons they might have, and there was no threat of imminent attack; indeed, they concluded Saddam would never attack the US because it would be suicide for Saddam. In conclusion, the UN Charter is the “paper victory” of two world wars that we all have family who sacrificed and suffered from (my father-in-law was wounded seven times and crippled as a WW2 medic; my only uncle suffered from PTSD; both my grandfathers served in WW1 in the “war to end all wars” and “to make the world safe for democracy”). The UN Charter legally ends wars of choice. But just like the “paper victory” of the 14th Amendment for equal protection under the law that was ignored for 100 years, the UN Charter is being ignored after 65 years.
I walked away; the father approached me and demanded, “What are you trying to accomplish here?” I responded, “We both want to support our soldiers. The best way I know is to keep our soldiers out of unlawful wars. Tell me how having our soldiers unlawfully invading other countries is supporting their families and them?” The father ignored the question and said, “There’s the microphone for the event. There’s the man in charge. Ask him to let you speak to the crowd and see how your message is received.”
I thanked him for the challenge and approached the person in charge. I thanked him for organizing an event to welcome our soldiers home and honor victims of 9/11. I briefed him that with his permission I’d like to give a two-minute talk to the audience to explain US war law. I told him that he might not like the fact that current US wars are not close to lawful, and that if he had two minutes I could explain and document why that was true. He responded that he didn’t have time, and then, angered, that he would never let anyone say anything that would upset the people at the event (in unrecognized arrogance that there wasn’t anything he didn’t already know to support our soldiers and their families). I told him that I, of course, respected his authority to conduct his event how he saw best. I asked if he would please read my flyer at his convenience to understand what I have to say. He calmly accepted and said that he would read it.
I then walked over to the second booth and chatted with the book author of the memories of his father about WW2 history and historical documentation. In the conversation, he stated his passion for accurate history had led him to work more and more carefully with verifiable facts. I agreed, and briefed him why I had attended the event. He understood the UN Charter was the result of the Second World War and what it meant, and that he didn’t see anyplace where he disagreed with what I said and what was on the flyer about unlawful US wars. His answer was that perhaps the US should leave the UN. When I replied that would destroy the paper victory that prevents unlawful wars and was part of the victory that his father and mine achieved, he seemed to have nothing more to say. The idea that the US should stop current wars if they were unlawful seemed too big a leap for him to make. I thanked him for the conversation, he confirmed that he could keep the flyer I gave him, and I moved to the last booth before the food.
A kind lady who appeared close to 80 asked if I would like to write a post card to a US soldier that would be delivered with a “care package.” I thanked her and accepted. I wrote a brief note of appreciation for good faith service of American ideals and freedom, a reminder of the soldiers’ Oath of Enlistment, and very brief explanation that these wars are unlawful.
I stayed at the event for two hours and then went home to the irony of a 9/11 first responder speaking to the audience when US political “leadership” denies health coverage to 9/11 first responders. So far, over 900 first responders have died from cancer and other health complications caused from breathing toxic dust (and this for Jon Stewart’s lampooning irony).
I went home and sent the following e-mail of appreciation to the event sponsors:
Thank you for your support of US soldiers; they deserve our respect for their intention to serve American values.
This was my first event; I attended in support and to discover if my contribution as a college-level teacher of US Government could be helpful. Upon conversation with a gentleman, he challenged me to ask the “emcee” (Dick) if I could speak to the audience. Dick declined, but here is my contribution in one paragraph and then a link with my professional paper on this subject (my published articles have been read by over a million people):
All of us have relatives who sacrificed from US wars. My father had several friends killed in the Battle of the Bulge. My father-in-law was a combat field medic who was wounded by Nazis on four occasions; the last crippling him with seven bullets. Both my grandfathers served in World War 1. The “emperor has no clothes” fact I have to contribute is that US wars in response to the terrorist acts of 9/11 are not even close to lawful. By their Oath of Enlistment, US soldiers are obligated to refuse unlawful orders; none more so than orders to fight an unlawful war. The US Constitution in Article VI makes US treaties our “Supreme law of the land.” The UN Charter is a treaty with legal authority in only one area: to prevent wars outside a narrow definition of self-defense. The US argument of “pre-emptive self-defense” is an admission of unlawful acts and request for dictatorial authority to attack anyone under argument of being a potential future threat. Among my documentation is official US policy to use nuclear weapons as first-strike “pre-emptive self-defense.” This Orwellian attempt to use our soldiers in foreign wars is also in direct violation of our international legal obligation that we created through the UN; the US expressly violated UN Security Council Resolutions to attack and invade Afghanistan and Iraq.
I am available to explain this to anyone interested in lawful use of US soldiers.
The next day, I received a reply…
Return tomorrow for this link to Part 2: E-mails from group leaders, who I’ll name, “Tom,” “Dick,” and “Harry.” Tom and Dick go on the offensive.