The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals

By far the most important initiative and best opportunity for reform in the world ever


DRAFT

USP Document 69

Proof that all Wars, Use of Force, Nuclear and Other Offensive Weapons, Violence, Sanctions and the Doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) Are All Unlawful Under International Law and that All Disputes and Conflicts Must be Settled by Pacific Means

(Updated April 23, 2019)


 

69.1  Following provides proof that all wars, use of force, nuclear and other offensive weapons, violence, and the doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD), are all unlawful

 

69.1.1    The Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 (officially the General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy), essentially outlawed all wars, has been ratified by over 80 countries, including the United States in 1929, is on the U.S. State Department’s website, was used to prosecute German and Japanese war criminals at the end of World War II, is established, effective, international law and along with the Constitution is part of the supreme law of the Land Footnote . In this Treaty, the United States and the other High Contracting Parties of the Pact stated:


“ARTICLE I

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.


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.”

 

69.1.2    Was used to prosecute war criminals during the International Military Tribunals at the end Nuremberg and the Tokyo. “President Franklin Roosevelt’s January 3, 1945, memo indicated his approval of various departmental war crimes proposals presented to him. The last lines of the president's memo stated that the charges should include an indictment for waging aggressive warfare, in violation of the Kellogg Pact. Perhaps these and other charges might be joined in a conspiracy indictment Footnote .” Senior military and government officials, judges, industrialist and even a journalist were tried and convicted at these tribunals.

 

69.1.2.1 “Pacific means” of settling disputes or conflicts include diplomacy, direct negotiations via email, Skype, phone, etc, negotiations through a third or multiple parties, the intervention of UN Peacekeepers, the International Criminal Court and Interpol, criminal complaints and tort claims.

 

69.1.2.2 It is unlawful, immoral and patently unfair for countries that have nuclear weapons to threaten a country with attacks. It is high time to permanently disable all weapons of mass destruction including nuclear and chemical and put these weapons under joint UN control.

 

69.1.2.3 This means that if anyone were to attack the U.S. with a nuclear or any offensive weapon, the U.S. could defend itself but it would be unlawful for the U.S. to counterattack with a nuclear or any offensive weapon because it would not be pacific means to settle or solve the conflict. If a nuclear weapon were used to fire back it would probably commit many other crimes including killing civilians and destroying prohibited structures and properties e.g. hospitals, clinics and schools. It would also be dumb to fire back because it would pollute the world with radioactive materials. It also might result in a large exchange of nuclear weapons that could destroy civilization and even all human life.

 

69.1.2.4 All this also means the occupation of Afghanistan, the bombings in Iraq and Syria, drone attacks, military and CIA covert operations, providing weapons used in offensive operations by governments or rebel groups, the worldwide War on Terror and sanctions are all unlawful.

 

69.2  Military personnel have an obligation under the UCMJ to disobey all unlawful orders

 

69.2.1    The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809[890].ART.90 (20) makes it clear that military personnel have an obligation to disobey all unlawful orders, including unlawful orders by the president. Unlawful orders include those that do not comply with the UCMJ, the U.S. Constitution, numerous national and international law or order for someone to commit a crime. Additional relevant information can be found in the article “A Duty to Disobey All Unlawful Orders” at www.omjp.org/ArtLarryDisobey.html

 

69.2.2    An order which is unlawful not only does not need to be obeyed but obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution of the one who obeys. Military courts have long held that military members are accountable for their actions even while following orders -- if the order was unlawful.

 

69.3  The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

 

69.3.1    The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, was formally adopted on July 4, 2017 at the United Nations headquarters in New York. It was opened for signature by member state on Sept. 20 during the annual General Assembly and will enter into legal force 90 days after being ratified by 50 countries.

 

69.3.2    It prohibits the development, testing, production, stockpiling, stationing, transfer, use and threat of use of nuclear weapons, as well as against assisting or encouraging the prohibited activities. Finally, any direct or indirect "control over nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices" is forbidden.

 

69.3.3    It requires each party to declare whether it had nuclear weapons of their own or deployed on its territory, including the elimination or conversion of related facilities.

 

69.3.4    It also requires parties that do not possess nuclear weapons to maintain their existing IAEA safeguards and, if they have not already done so, to accept safeguards based on the model for non-nuclear-weapon states under the NPT and much more


              Source: Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons - Wikipedia

 

69.4  Portions of CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS which deal with maintaining peace


PREAMBLE


WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

 

•   to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and ...

 

•   AND FOR THESE ENDS

 

•   to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and

 

•   to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

 

•   to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and ...


HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS


CHAPTER I: PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES


Article 1


The Purposes of the United Nations are:

 

1.To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal 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

 

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.

 

4. 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.

 

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, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.

 

2. The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.

 

Article 36

 

3. In making recommendations under this Article the Security Council should also take into consideration that legal disputes should as a general rule be referred by the parties to the International Court of Justice [and/or the International Criminal Court] in accordance with the provisions of the Statute of the Court.

 

Article 51

 

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations [This is the only time force is lawful under the Charter]

 

69.5     The U.S. Constitution

 

69.5.1  Means exactly what it says. In legal terms: If a constitutional provision is plain and unambiguous, we do not construe it but apply it as written Footnote . The framers of the U.S. Constitution clearly intended that the president not have the authority to wage any acts of war without Congress specifically declaring war. As President James Madison famously said:

 

“War ... should only be declared by the authority of the people, whose toils and treasures are to support its burdens, instead of the government which is to reap its fruits... Testimony of all ages forces us to admit that war is among the most dangerous enemies to liberty, and that the executive is the branch most favored by it of all the branches of Power.”

 

69.5.2 Powers and Responsibilities granted to Congress by the Constitution under Article I. - The Legislative Branch, Section 8 - “The Congress shall have Power:”

 

     To Provide for the common Defense [Not offense]

 

To Define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

 

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

 

To raise and support Armies, [not support standing armies] but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

 

     To provide and maintain a Navy;

 

     To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

 

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

 

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

 

To make all Laws Footnote which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof

 

69.6    The items in italics below are excerpts from the February 20, 2006 article “The Constitution Limits the President Even as "Commander in Chief", by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D. (Available at http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin32.htm). In his article Dr. Vieira makes it clear that:

 

The President, even as "Commander in Chief," has a circumscribed and contingent authority dependent upon mandates from Congress not some limitless "inherent" power

 

Merely labeling some situation a "war" cannot call the President's rightful powers as "Commander in Chief" into operation

 

according to strict constitutional logic, a "war on terror" is an existential impossibility--if only because "terror" is a tactic, not a country; and "terrorists" do not constitute one or more independent nations, but at most are mere bands of private criminals.

 

Congress has never exercised its constitutional power ... to declare a "war on terror."

 

Congress has not declared "war" on Iraq, either

 

This absence of Congressional action is consequential, because only Congress has the power "[t]o declare War." And the Constitution plainly understands that, absent such a declaration from the only source authorized to pronounce it, a "War" cannot be conducted legally by the United States.

 

the Constitution denies the President any pretense of power himself either "[t]o declare War" or to involve this country in actions usually appropriate only after such a declaration has been made. (For example, ordering American soldiers intentionally to kill the soldiers of some other nation, ... )

 

an attack by one nation upon another independent nation not justified by "the common defence" of the former constitutes a crime under international law, as settled at the Nuremberg and Tokyo War Crimes Trials."

 

a declaration of "War" by the United States against some other nation in the course of "the war on terror" ... certainly cannot be rationalized by an airy appeal to "spreading democracy" in foreign lands. ... Nowhere does the Constitution empower the United States to further naked "democracy," either at home or abroad, by any means, let alone "War."

 

Neither could a declaration of "War" be justified simply on the grounds of defending some other country.

 

even if the leaders of some other nation were planning to attack the United States in the indefinite future, a declaration of "War" now would be beyond Congress's power. ... preemptive war has been considered illegal for several hundred years.

 

Nowhere does the Constitution empower Congress to exercise "force" itself, or to license the President to do so.

 

because he is "Commander in Chief" "of the land and naval Forces" and of "the Militia of the several States," the President is bound by such rules and regulations Congress provides for those entities.

 

If the President does disregard or violate any valid Congressional directive or prohibition relating to "the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces" or the Militia, then to that extent he fails to perform his duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.". If his failure is intentional, the President violates his "Oath or Affirmation * * * that [he] will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of [his] Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Such perjury constitutes a "high Crime[ ]" for which the President may--and should--be impeached, convicted, and "removed from Office."

 

The case is even clearer if the agency involved in the President's misdeeds ... is a purely civilian agency, such as the NSA. ... a civilian agency is entirely a creature of Congress, which Congress may create or refuse to create, and to which it may give such powers, or from which it may withhold such powers, on such conditions, as it chooses. With respect to such an agency, the President enjoys no authority other than what Congress delegates to him--and self-evidently no power that Congress withholds. ... Should the President venture one Angstrom Unit beyond the boundaries of the statute that creates the agency and defines its authority, he would not be "tak[ing] Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." And if this misstep were intentional, he would be subject to impeachment, conviction, and removal from office

 

"self-defense"--whether on the part of an individual or a nation--is a specific legal conception, not a open-ended license simply to shoot first and ask questions later. At the minimum, the use of deadly force in self-defense is justified only in response to some imminent, unavoidable peril. The defender must employ only the amount of force reasonably necessary to stop the attacker. And the defender must cease the use of force when the threat has been thwarted, not continue to apply, let alone to escalate, force so as to turn his own actions from self-defense into aggression.

 

Moreover, even self-defense would not necessarily entail "War," unless Congress so declared.

 

the contention that "the war on terror," as it is being waged, has any sound constitutional basis at all is bogus.

 

Congress cannot authorize the President to take any actions that violate the guarantees of, say, the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eight Amendments. Neither can the President's own powers (whatever they may be) override these, or any other, constitutional limitations.

 

the President cannot have "inherent" authority to declare anyone to be an "enemy combatant," without recourse to judicial review.

 

In sum, the arguments that all too many "conservative" media personalities typically put forward these days to infuse the Presidency with Fuhrer-like powers are the products of constitutional illiteracy. They are, however, not just nonsense, but extremely dangerous nonsense--because they will surely be trotted out in the future in support of a comprehensive police state

 

"situation constitutionalism"--the notion that the Constitution may be creatively interpreted to fit some immediate political agenda, rather than all political agendas being required to square with the original intent of the Constitution--is a Sirens' song that will surely lure America's ship of state onto the rocks of destruction. And far sooner than most Americans imagine.

 

69.7    The Constitution doe not currently provide the president any war powers.

 

69.7.1 Article II Section. 2 of the Constitution states: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.

 

69.7.2 The commas before and after the phrase “and of the Militia of the several States” implies that the President is only Commander in Chief when the Army, Navy and Militia (National Guard) are called into the actual [legitimate] Service of the United States. Neither Congress nor the President may legally call the Army, Navy and Militia (National Guard) into Service of the United States to unlawfully attack Syria, ISIS, North Korea or any country or individual

 

69.8    The above proves that:

 

69.8.1 Since wars have been renounced are unlawful and conflicts must be settle by pacific means, the President ordering an attack, bombs, wage wars or uses force against or in Syria, Iran, North Korea or any country or group is unlawful.

 

69.8.2 All wars, use of force, nuclear weapons and the strategies of deterrence and of mutually assured destruction are all unlawful.

 

69.8.3 Wars, attacks on Syria, Iran, ISIS, Iraq, North Korea or against any country, group or individual and the use of force, except in self defense by the U.S. are unlawful and crimes even if Congress declares war or authorizes the use of forces and/or the United Nations authorizes the use of force. The president does not have the power to order attacks on any country or group and has no war powers.

 

69.8.4  Threats against Syria, Iran or any other countries are unlawful.

 

69.8.5  A vote by a legislator to authorize the President to order attacks or to provide funds for these attack against any country is unlawful

 

69.8.6 Carrying out any order that maims, murders or detains civilians or combatants or destroys property are crimes except when conducted in the actual defense of the country. Use of force to prevent attacks and retaliations for attacks are prohibited. Individuals conducting these acts are illegitimate combatants and are not afforded the protections normally granted by the Geneva Convention and could be arrested and tried by local authorities or the International Criminal Court.

 

69.8.7 Intervention of any country in an internal or domestic dispute in another country is unlawful

 

69.8.7.1     The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (2001) and the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq of 2002 (AUMF) are null and void

 

69.8.7.2     The current “war” and occupation of Afghanistan, drone attacks, military and CIA covert operations and the worldwide War on Terror, etc., are unlawful

 

69.8.7.3     The President is only Commander in Chief when the Army, Navy and Militia (National Guard) are called into the actual [legitimate] Service of the United States. He is not Commander in Chief all the time and has no wars powers

 

69.8.7.4     Neither Congress nor the President may legally call the Army, Navy and Militia (National Guard) into Service of the United States to unlawfully attack Syria, ISIL, Iran, etc.

 

69.8.7.5    Since a country may only use force to defend itself against an attack and it is unlawful to retaliate, the strategy of mutually assured destruction is unlawful in addition to being immoral, stupid and illogical.

 

69.8.7.6    The president has no inherent war making powers or even the authority to make the rule or regulations for the conduct of war or handling of prisoners. As Commander-in-Chief he is responsible for executing the Laws, Rules and Regulations made by Congress.

 

69.8.7.7    The president does not have the authority to wage any acts of war with or with out Congress specifically declaring war.

 

69.8.7.8         Standing armies are not needed or permitted

 

69.8.7.9    State Militias now called the National Guard provide everything required of a standing army

 

69.8.7.10   In Public Law 107-40 “To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent [September 11, 2001] attacks launched against the United States” approved September 18, 2001 members of Congress wrongfully and unlawfully authorized the President: to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. This law:

 

69.8.7.10.1   Contains false statements including: Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States

 

69.8.7.10.2   Contains conflicting statements

 

69.8.7.11  In September/October 2002, President Bush presented a proposed use-of-force-against-Iraq resolution to be voted on by Congress. When the House of Representatives debated this resolution, Congressman Dennis Kucinich made the case for NOT going to war. He prepared a paragraph by paragraph Analysis of the Joint Resolution on Iraq pointing out “Key Issues” which argued against Congress voting to use force. He distributed his analysis, personally, to over 200 members of Congress from October 2, 2002 until October 10, 2002 when the vote occurred.

 

69.8.7.12   The Authorization for Use of Military Force Terrorists (Pub. L. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224, enacted September 18, 2001), and Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq of 2002 (AUMF) approved by the House and Senate in October, 2002, are in violation of the Kellogg-Briand Pact, were obtained by fraud and have been used to commit fraud and are unconstitutional, null and void.