*hyperlinks live at source*
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:
Part 1: Introduction, what happened at the event, and my first e-mail to the event sponsors.
Part 2: 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.
Part 3: E-mail continuation: My response to Dick, their “Constitutionalist” says this issue is a waste of time. Tom responds.
Part 4: E-mail continuation: attempting to reach Tom with reason
Part 5: E-mail conclusion with Tom.
Part 6: A possible addendum should event organizers wish to respond.
* * * * *
Part 3: My response to Dick, their “Constitutionalist” says this issue is a waste of time. Tom responds (parts 1, 2 linked above).
Note: Dick has now cc-d several others on the e-mail. I respond to this group from Dick's response that concluded Part 2.
From Carl Herman 9/13:
Dick and fellow American citizens,
As I originally wrote in appreciation of the 9/11 event you organized and created, and repeated to Tom, I thank you for your support of our soldiers and their families. I honor you for that expression of patriotism.
My challenge to Tom extends to any and all of you. Answer the following four basic questions for American citizen competence. Please feel free to take your time and enlist anyone of your choosing to help answer the questions.
Dick, in addition, explain how my understanding what the US Constitution says and the victory of WW2 family and soldiers through US treaty to end wars of choice is not preserving this country. How is support of the US Constitution showing any willingness on my part to “lose this beautiful country”? It’s US rules of war created with US leadership and then made into a US treaty called the UN Charter, Dick. With all respect, you argue from ignorance of what the US won in WW2 and how that victory was then structured in a treaty for their children to not engage in wars of choice. Although you indicate ignorance in this area, I promise what I’m writing is a conservative understanding of this law that you’re welcome to verify with whomever you choose. War laws are meant to be crystal-clear.
With all respect, Dick, and anyone else interested in demonstrating citizen competence rather than blind belief in what a leader dictates, answer these four questions:
1. Whether you have served or not, you should know the Oath of Enlistment of our soldiers requires our soldiers to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Do you agree to support and defend the US Constitution?
> 2. Article 6 of the Constitution makes US treaties signed by a president and ratified by 2/3 of the US Senate as "Supreme law of the land." The UN Charter (have you even read it?) is the legal victory of WW2, designed primarily by the US, and has treaty status. It's only area of authority is to prevent wars of choice/Wars of Aggression. Limited use of war for a narrow definition of self-defense is the whole point of the UN Charter and therefore a component of US Constitutional law. Do you agree to support and defend the US Constitution, or do you prefer dictatorship in starting wars: whatever a leader says rather than limited government under US Constitutional law?
> 3. Attacking and invading Afghanistan and Iraq are nowhere close to legal use of a nation's military under the UN Charter and thereby the US Constitution. If you disagree, explain how these wars are lawful. After two years and a million readers of my published articles, I've yet to find anyone who can make this argument. Can you? If not, then your support of US wars is unconstitutional. Supporting our soldiers in lawful combat is the best support I know to make. To make this a two-part question, how does your ignorant backing of unlawful combat support our soldiers when they signed-up to support American values of limited government under US Constitutional law?
> 4. Finally, if you have the courage to read and understand just one law that was created by the US to end wars of choice, will you recant your previous ignorant support of current US wars and request US soldiers to honor their Oath of Enlistment to refuse all orders associated with these Orwellian and "emperor has no clothes" obvious unlawful wars? And yes, I fully understand such soldiers will be threatened with Court Martial (although, like Lt. Ehren Watada, they probably won't be tried because the trial will publicly disclose the evidence the wars are unlawful). If not, how do you defend yourself from the charge that you are rejecting the US Constitution?
And as I wrote to Tom:
Until such time you show your understanding of what the US Constitution says and is for, as a person whose professional attention is to teach, support, and defend the US Constitution, I say this to you: your ignorance is “supporting” our soldiers’ unlawful engagement and getting them killed. Your ignorance has you blindly supporting dictatorship in the most important area of limited government under US law: war. Your gullibility is irresponsible, literally murderous, and you should devote the one damn hour it takes to read my article to understand war law: "US war laws explained, why Afghanistan and Iraq wars are unlawful, how to end them".
I apologize if my passion to act with our soldiers’ lives on the line translates into any disrespect. That is not my intent. As stated, I experience our soldiers and you as acting in good faith for the good of our nation. If you are willing to engage in the conservative spirit and letter of the US Constitution with me, I offer my time and professionalism.
In solidarity with our soldiers, our flag, and our honor,
I sent the email chain to our Constitutionalist, to see if he wanted to respond to this guy and his response was “he is a waste of our limited time.”
from Carl Herman, 9/13:
Dick and those committed to the US Constitution rather than wars from dictates:
This "constitutionalist" can't explain one law in a few sentences? And arguably the most important law to master if one is truly supportive of the use of our soldiers is a waste of his/her time? Boy, some expert you have, and hardly anyone to count on to support our soldiers if definitively addressing lawful or unlawful war isn't worth addressing. I bet if you asked this person to explain the "infield fly rule" or its equivalent in a hobby, that person would be happy to oblige with a few moments' writing. And the infield fly rule takes longer than explaining the difference between lawful and unlawful war. But I suspect this: I'm correct in the conservative spirit and letter of war law and this person can't refute my explanation and documentation. Instead, this person hides behind an excuse and knows it.
This person is a liar.
Send that to your Constitutionalist.
If a US soldier asked you, or your "expert" point-blank to explain what is and is not lawful war, would you tell that soldier the question is a waste of your limited time? Of course not. You'd admit you don't know and help the soldier find out. Maybe, just maybe, you'd ask someone who teaches government and history for a living to help point to the documentation to factually address and answer the question.
The US-created treaty of War law is written in every language and meant to be understood by all responsible citizens. Since your expert abandoned you, unless my assessment of calling him/her a liar changes that status, my challenge remains for any of you to answer my four questions.
Doesn't it bother any of you that you don't know what makes a war lawful??? Don't you think as responsible Americans who claim you support our soldiers that you should do your homework and find out?
My challenge is meant to motivate you in recognizing and feeling the importance of this question for our soldiers' legal use, and for our respect of their families' and soldiers' safety. This is a difficult task and I apologize for angering any of you. That said, my points and challenge stand.
First of all, I want to thank you for shining your all knowing enlightenment on my cave dwelling intellect, thus freeing me from my own ignorance....but seriously, I did learn some things from your article. I have not yet confirmed any of it--of course I am somewhat hesitant to believe everything I hear from those who obviously have such strong personal opinion. Yeah, despite what you say or think, I am not just some blind sheep following your adversaries around.
I suppose the main thing I have learned from your article is that I must not support the constitution. I believe I do as it was written by the founding fathers, but not as you purport it to have been altered by government (or by the dictators and aspiring dictators you describe).
For example, I do not support article VI of the constitution. I do not believe I should have to obey the United Nations. Don't get me wrong: I believe in the lofty goal of ending all wars and all violence, but I do not believe that is really the UN goal. After all, who is ON the security council? Yet I am supposed to obey them?--I choose not to.
Again, I am much more ignorant than you, but didn't the UN order Iraq to comply with all inspections? Did they comply?
As far as your neighbor shooting your family member because they are dangerous and the police can do it anyway: Did you know the police in this country were never meant to have significantly more power than the citizenry? For example, if the neighbor you described came over to kill a family member, you would have every right to man-up and defend your family without waiting for the police. In fact you would have every right to use the same level of force as the police (the government) to defend yourself--yes, even if it meant shooting that neighbor to defend yourself or others.
Yeah, that is one of the wonderful things about this country, we don't legally have to depend on the government to take care of us. I would argue that we should not depend on them.
If I must depend on government, I would prefer to depend on smaller, more local government--preferably one that in this country--one that is held accountable to the American People. Not one that is run by, among others, China and Russia--(...speaking of governments who are responsible for mass murder and wars of aggression).
By the way, I never said I support war--you said I do. Interesting coming from someone who is objectively in charge of our children's education. I find it interesting that you preach about how ignorant I am to believe anybody but you. You, who are so intolerant and closed minded and self righteous. Anybody who disagrees with you is ignorant. I know, often feel the same way, just one of the many reasons I chose not to be entrusted with the teaching of others--I realize I have a hard time being objective. I also realize that somebody may know just as much, if not more about something than I....or, they may just have an opposing opinion.
I do, however, support the soldiers who have sacrificed so much for us. I noticed you used an analogy in your article. I too like analogies. So, please allow me to use one also:
Your neighbor threatens to kill your wife. Your son truly believes this threat to be credible. Meanwhile, somebody blows up your car and kills your daughter while it is parked in your driveway. You report this to the police, who can do nothing without proof. Your neighbor tells you that he blew up your daughter and that your wife is next. You decide to follow the rule of law and do nothing--waiting for the police to do something.
Meanwhile, your wife pleads with your son to protect her (and you) by whatever means necessary. Your son (with best of intentions) does a preemptive attack on your neighbor. It can be anything: Grabs him, hits him, shoots him, whatever he feels he needs to do.
Your son has a very hard time dealing with what he has just done. He is having trouble reconciling the controversial actions he has just taken to save his Mother and his Father. His Mother--your wife—is very appreciative. She knows how difficult it was for your son to do what he did. She arranges counseling and support groups for him. Then YOU show up at the support group and tell him that he violated the law and is responsible for the violence in the world. While at this support group, you point out (in your infinite wisdom) how he really should have refused to do anything--yeah, he was a failure and still is.
So here it is:
I am not saying I support any war (although they did seem to solve those little problems with the Japanese in Nanking, the Nazis in Europe...and that slavery thing).
What I am saying is that we should support the people who have sacrificed for us--yes even if you disagree with what they did. Even if you think they are not as smart as you. How does it help to demean them for what they have done when their intentions were good.
I have no doubt that you know more about law than I ever will, but I think I still know what is right. Perhaps you just don't need to show up at our events to tell the soldiers how ingorant they are or how much smarter you are. We don't do this to celebrate war. We do this to let them know how much we appreciate their sacrifices.
You know there were plenty of Americans who did not think we should have gotten involved in WWII. I really don't think you would have wanted them going to your ancestor's events to tell them how they really only made things worse for the world.
Thank you for your time and for listening to my plea.
Part 4 tomorrow: E-mail continuation: attempting to reach Tom with reason