GEORGE BUSH PLANS HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS:
Why We Are Marching on October 26th
By Carl Messineo and Mara Verheyden-Hilliard
[The authors, attorneys and co-founders of the Partnership
for Civil Justice - LDEF, are members of the national
steering committee of the A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop
War & End Racism) Coalition.]
George W. Bush has declared his intention to wage a 'preemptive' war
against Iraq and is now seeking to strong-arm the international
community, the U.N., and the Congress into support and submission. As
members of Congress rush to show their obedience and member states of
the U.N. line up to receive the anticipated spoils of war, the
administration is now waging a campaign to convince the people of the
United States to fall into step and finance with money and blood this
war brought for conquest on behalf of the corporate and oil interests
that make up Bush's true constituency.
Bush's preemptive war is a war of aggression. The U.S. policy
supporting the war is not the rule of law, but the rule of force.
But no U.N. resolution and no Congressional resolution can legalize an
illegal war. With pen to paper and votes of support, they can only
commit to wilful ratification, complicity and responsibility for
illegal acts by endorsing a criminal enterprise.
A war of aggression violates the United States Constitution, the
United Nations Charter, and the principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal.
It violates the collective law of humanity that recognizes the
immeasurable harm and unconscionable human suffering when a country
engages in wars of aggression to advance its government's perceived
national interests.
THE NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY: BLUEPRINT FOR GLOBAL EMPIRE
On September 20, 2002, the Bush Administration issued its blueprint
for global domination and ceaseless military interventions, in its
comprehensive policy statement entitled "The National Security
Strategy of the United States."
The National Security Strategy sets forth the U.S. military-industrial
complex's ambition for the U.S. to remain the world's superpower with
global political, economic and military dominance. The stated policy
of the U.S. is "dissuading military competition" (See source I) and
preventing any other world entity or union of states "from pursuing a
military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of
the United States." (See source II)
The strategic plan elevates free trade and free markets to be "a moral
principle . . . real freedom" (See source III) and endorses a
comprehensive global conquest strategy utilizing the World Trade
Organization, the Free Trade Act of the Americas, the International
Monetary Fund, the World Bank, among other mechanisms.
The Washington Post reports that the National Security Strategy gives
the United States "a nearly messianic role" in its quest for global
dominance. (See source IV)
The National Security Strategy confirms and elaborates what was
reflected in the January 2002 Nuclear Posture Review, that the Bush
Administration maintains a policy of preemptive warfare contemplating
the use of non-conventional weapons of mass destruction as a first
strike measure. (See source V)
TURNING LOGIC ON ITS HEAD
Bush's preemptive war policy is a war without just cause. Under
international law and centuries of common legal usage, a preemptive
war may be justified as an act of self defense only where there exists
a genuine and imminent threat of physical attack.
Bush's preemptive war against Iraq doesn't even purport to preempt a
physical attack. It purports to preempt a threat that is neither
issued nor posed. Iraq is not issuing threats of attack against the
United States. It is only the United States which threatens war.
It is not a war for disarmament. It is the U.S. which has stockpiled
nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. It is the U.S. which is
directly threatening to use these weapons against another country. It
is the U.S. which has bombed Iraq relentlessly for more than ten
years, killing scores of innocent civilians.
The Bush Administration turns logic on its head, twisting reality in
order to create the pretext for its war of aggression. The
Administration claims that the necessary prerequisite of an imminent
threat of attack can be found in the fact that there is no evidence of
an imminent threat, and therefore the threat is even more sinister as
a hidden threat. The lack of a threat becomes the threat, which
becomes cause for war.
By the U.S. Government's own claims, it destroyed 80% of Iraq's
weapons capability in the earlier Gulf War, and subsequently destroyed
90% of the remaining capacity through the weapons inspections process.
There has been no evidence that Iraq is capable of an attack on the
U.S., let alone possessing the intention of carrying out such an
attack.
BUSH'S PROPOSED WAR AND CURRENT THREATS VIOLATE THE U.S. CONSTITUTION,
THE U.N. CHARTER AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
Bush's preemptive war policy and proposed attack on Iraq cannot be
justified under any form of established law.
The preemptive war policy and Bush's threatened new military assault
on Iraq violates U.S. domestic law and international law. The
warmongering, preparations for war, and threats of violence coming
from Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and other White House and Pentagon
hawks, are in and of themselves violations of international law and
constitute crimes against peace.
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution establishes that ratified
treaties, such as the U.N. Charter, are the "supreme law of the land."
The Article 1 of the U.N. Charter establishes
"The purposes of the United Nations are . . . To maintain
international peace and sovereignty, and to that end: to take
effective collective measures for the prevention and removals of
threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or
other breaches of the peace and to bring about by peaceful means, and
in conformity with the principles of justice and international law,
adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations
which might lead to a breach of the peace . . ."
Article 2 states that all member states "shall act in accordance with
the following Principles"
". . . All members shall settle their international disputes by
peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security,
and justice, are not endangered.
"All members shall refrain in their international relations from the
threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political
independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with
the Purposes of the United Nations . . ."
Under this framework, acts of aggression, such as Bush's threatened
attack, are to be suppressed and force is used only as a last and
unavoidable resort.
The U.N. Charter was enacted in 1945 in the aftermath of the
devastation and suffering of World War II. The Charter was enacted to
bring an end to acts of aggression, "to save succeeding generations
from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought
untold sorrow to mankind."
Disputes which might lead to a breach of the peace are required to be
resolved *by peaceful means.*
Chapter VI of the U.N. Charter, "Pacific Settlement of Disputes,"
requires countries to "first of all, seek a resolution by negotiation,
enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement,
resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means
of their own choice."
NO RESOLUTION BY THE U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL CAN LEGALIZE A PREEMPTIVE
WAR OR FIRST STRIKE PLAN
Bush has asked the U.N. Security Council to support execution of
Bush's policy of a potentially nuclear "preemptive" war, as if that
Council could endorse a war of aggression. The Security Council lacks
the legal authority to grant such permission. The Security Council,
by affirmative vote or by acquiescence to U.S. policy, cannot
abrogate its own mandate. No collective action by the fifteen
permanent and temporary members of the Security Council can lawfully
violate the Charter which is the sole source of their collective
authority.
This is made clear in the U.N. Charter itself, which provides in
Article 24, that "In discharging these duties the Security Council
*shall act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the
United Nations*."
While there are, of course, procedures by which collective use of
force may be authorized by the Security Council to maintain or restore
international peace and security (Articles 41 and 42) those procedures
may not be used to endorse aggression in violation of the primary
purposes of the U.N. Charter. Article 51 of the U.N. Charter
acknowledges the right to self-defense ?if an armed attack occurs
against a Member of the United Nations until the Security Council has
taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and
security." None of the provisions allow for authorization for Bush's
war plans and first strike strategies. Any resolution authorizing a
preemptive war of aggression is *ultra vires*, or null and void as
beyond the authority of the Council to enact.
The very issuance of the Bush doctrine of preemptive warfare and also
the threat to wage war against Iraq are, each, a violation of
international law as a crime against peace, which is defined in the
Nuremberg Charter as the "Planning, preparation, initiation or waging
of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international
treaties, agreements or assurances."
RESPONSIBILITY FOR WAR CRIMES
Neither Congress nor the President has the right to engage the U.S. in
a war of aggression and any vote of endorsement, far from legalizing
or legitimizing global war plans, serves only as ratification of war
crimes. Under the principles of universal accountability established
at Nuremberg, "The fact that a person who committed an act which
constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or
responsible Government official does not relieve him from
responsibility under international law." (See source VI)
The execution of economic sanctions by the Bush I, Bush II and Clinton
Administrations, which has caused the deaths of over one million
people, primarily children and their grandparents, is likewise
sanctionable as a crime against humanity under the Nuremberg Charter
and under the International Criminal Court Statute as "the
intentional infliction of conditions of life, . . . the deprivation of
access of food to medicine, calculated to bring about the destruction
of a part of a population. (See source VII)
The Bush Administration has rejected the International Criminal Court
treaty signed by over 130 countries. This rejection is an admission of
the administration's consciousness of guilt and of criminal
intentions. The Bush administration acts with a conscious disregard of
humanitarian laws and a stated intention to avoid accountability for
their crimes under international law prohibiting crimes against the
peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The National Security
Strategy promulgated by the Bush administration states that the
United States "will take the actions necessary to ensure that our
efforts to meet our global security commitments and protect Americans
are not impaired by the potential for investigations, inquiry or
prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC), whose
jurisdiction does not extend to Americans and which we do not accept."
(See source VIII)
ENDLESS WAR, AGGRESSION AND TERROR
Once this policy of preemptive wars of aggression is invoked by the
Bush Administration to justify unprovoked attacks against the centers
of population in Iraq, the doctrine will be used by the hawks in the
administration time and time again, and will also be adopted by
nations and individuals internationally as a justification for the
preemptive use of catastrophic violence against centers of population
worldwide. The legitimization of preemptive wars of aggression will be
used to justify attacks against U.S. centers of population, and will
bring greater violent retribution upon the cities and people of the
United States for actions that the government is taking in their
names, without their informed consent.
The risk of suffering harm because of this doctrine is, of course, not
distributed equally among all residents of the United States. Those
who will lose their lives fighting in wars of aggression will be the
young, disproportionately persons of color, and those who must enlist
in the U.S. military because of bleak economic opportunity. Those who
derive their wealth and security from the transactions of war, from
increased oil profits caused by global instability or conquest of oil
rich regions, and from the constant re-building and re-arming
necessary to conduct endless wars against countless peoples premised
on imperceptible threats -- they will have the means to acquire
seclusion, protection and greater safety.
Preemptive war will not stop with Iraq. Constant military
interventions worldwide are necessary to enforce Bush?s stated policy
of global economic, political and military domination. Just four days
after the September 11th attacks, the CIA presented its "Worldwide
Attack Matrix" identifying scores of countries that the CIA wanted
permission to attack. Bush approved the CIA wish list, and authorized
immediate covert and lethal CIA operations in over sixty nations.
(See source IX)
TAKING TO THE STREETS
As the U.S. moves at breakneck pace in execution of its stated policy
of global domination and overt military interventions, the need for
the people to take action is urgent.
Congress will not stop this policy of aggressive warfare and global
domination. Many in Congress are well served with the tithing of the
war profiteers and their corporate sponsors who see U.S. military
domination as a way to enforce their interests, to exploit human labor
at starvation wages overseas and to drive down wages domestically, to
mine vast sources of environmental resources globally, and to impose
and expand the reach of their "free" markets.
The U.S. Constitutional framework provides that, regardless of who
temporarily holds office, all power remains in the hands of the
people. It is time now for the people to take the reins of power back
from those who have stated their intention to act in violation of all
laws that humankind has struggled to create to end global
conflagration and prohibit wars of aggression.
When law will not restrain the government, the people must. We must
take to the streets in mass numbers in organized and spontaneous acts
of resistance. The message must be clearly conveyed that if the Bush
administration refuses to be accountable to U.S. domestic law, to the
U.N. Charter, to international law, to all known standards of just
conduct, then the people of conscience within the United States will
rise up to demand accountability. And the message must be sent that
the people of the U.S. will not allow the Bush administration to spend
the blood of the people of the United States and the people of Iraq
who are not our enemies, in a needless war for oil.
-SEPTEMBER, 2002
The authors, Carl Messineo and Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, constitutional
law and human rights lawyers, are the co-founders of the Partnership
for Civil Justice Legal Defense and Education Fund, a public interest
legal organization in Washington, D.C., and authors of the
forthcoming book "Empire at Home: George W. Bush and John Ashcroft v.
the Bill of Rights."
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT: Partnership for Civil Justice LDEF
1901 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Suite 607
Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 530-5630
http://www.civil-rights.net
For a formatted, printable version of this article, go to
http://www.civil-rights.net/webdocs/illegal_war.pdf
(acrobat reader required)
To join the OCTOBER 26 NATIONAL MARCH ON WASHINGTON DC &
joint action in San Francisco to Stop the War Against Iraq
Before It Starts, and to learn more about anti-war
resources, visit http://www.InternationalANSWER.org and
see below for more information.
--------------------
SOURCES
for "George Bush Plans High Crimes and Misdemeanors"
I) National Security Strategy of the United States,
September 2002, page 29.
II) National Security Strategy of the United States,
September 2002, page 30.
III) National Security Strategy of the United States,
September 2002, page 18.
IV) Karen DeYoung and Mike Allen, The Washington Post,
"Bush Shifts Strategy from Deterrence to Dominance,"
September 21, 2001, A1.
V) Walter Pincus, The Washington Post, "U.S. Nuclear Arms
Stance Modified by Policy Study," March 23, 2002, A14;
Thomas E. Ricks and Vernon Loeb, The Washington Post,
"Bush Developing Military Policy of Striking First," June
10, 2002, A1.
VI) Principle III, Principles of International Law
Recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in
the Judgment of the Tribunal (Adopted by the International
Law Commission of the United States, 1950).
VII) International Criminal Court Statute, Article 7,
paragraph 2.
VIII) National Security Strategy of the United States,
September 2002, page 31.
IX) Bob Woodward and Dan Balz, The Washington Post, "At
Camp David, Advice and Dissent," January 31, 2002, A1; Bob
Woodward, The Washington Post, "President Broadens
Anti-Hussein Order," June 16, 2002, A1.
--------------------
Momentum is building for the October 26 National March in
Washington DC & joint action in San Francisco.
For the growing list of ENDORSERS, go to
http://www.internationalanswer.org/campaig.../endorsers.html
BUSES, VANS and CAR CARAVANS are coming to DC from a
growing list of cities:
http://www.internationalanswer.org/campaig.../o26/index.html
(updated frequently)
HELP GET THE WORD OUT! Download flyer at:
http://www.internationalanswer.org/pdf/o2602flyer.pdf
FOR MORE INFORMATION about Oct. 26 email
[email protected] or call 202-332-5757 or
415-821-6545.
------------------
Send replies to [email protected]
This is the IAC activist announcement
list. Anyone can subscribe by sending
any message to <[email protected]>
To unsubscribe <[email protected]>