Should PNAC Members Be Investigated for Instigating a War of Aggression?

[Macchendra]

In their document: "Rebuilding America's Defenses" they sought to establish as one of the "core missions": to fight multiple major wars.

When war is a core mission, then all wars that spring from that intent are wars of aggression. This demonstrates motive.

Many of these people went on to join Bush Administration ...

[FiveGoodMen]

1. YES!

[Donnachaidh]

2. YES. n/t

[MrCoffee]

3. it's illegal to start a war?

show me the US law that makes it illegal to start a war. i don't want to hear your arguments about ethics and morality, because i agree with you that wars of agression are bad. i want you to link to the section of the United States Code that makes it illegal to start a war.

[Macchendra]

8. Starting an "aggressive" war is illegal because...

The constitution states that all signed treaties will be the highest law of the land.

Among those treaties is the UN Charter.

It is a violation of UN Charter to wage an aggressive war.

This means ANY war that is not self-defense.

Even Kofi said he though the war was illegal.

Waging an aggressive war was the charge against the Nazi leaders that got them hanged in Nuremberg.

Peace!

[MrCoffee]

12. treaties do not trump the Constitution

which reserves to Congress the power to declare war, and to the President as commander-in-chief.
(And no, I'm not defending the war, or Chimpy, so don't even start)

Congress has the power to enact laws and ratify treaties. Does Congress therefore have the right to amend the Constitution by passing a nugatory law? Of course not. The Supreme Court has regularly and routinely held that treaty obligations in violation of Constutionally-delegated powers of Congress and the President, or that alter and amend the Constitutional powers and rights, are null and void.

You take it as faith that a violation of the UN Charter is a violation of the Constituiton, or at least the law of the US. You have no proof of your assertion. And you have yet to point to the law that makes it unconstitutional to start a war.

The popular misconception is that a violation of a treaty is violation of Federal law. It's just that, a misconception. It's not unconstitutional until the Supreme Court says it is. Kofi can say whatever he wants, it has no bearing.

[Macchendra]

14. Switch to decaf, stop attributing to me things I did not say, and...

Read Article VI of the Constitution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Six_of_the_United_States_Constitution

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land"

[MrCoffee]

17. stautory interpretation 101

so if the US signs and ratifies a treaty that says that all parties to the treaty will recognize Lutheranism as their state religion, what law controls, the Constitution or the treaty?

[Macchendra]

19. I thought I told you to switch to decaf. n/t

n/t

[MrCoffee]

46. well, thanks for your thoughtful response.

[htuttle]

21. Like in any other Constitutional dispute, I'd assume the Supreme Court would decide

The Constitution and treaties ratified by Congress seem to be given the same import in Article VI. Therefore the Court would have to decide how to square a treaty like that with the 1st Amendment. It's likely it would be found unconstitutional.

[Seabiscuit]

50. If it violates treaties and does not violate delegated powers of Congress and the President,

it violates the Constitution.

Article VI<1>: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land...."

[cali]

51. Specifically, how does "Rebuilding America's Defenses"

which advocates a foreign policy pov (one I find despicable) violate any treaty?

[Seabiscuit]

52. This is a first.

Since I began creating an ignore list, no one on the list has replied to any of my posts.

Until now.

[Freddie Stubbs]

30. Has the United Nations ruled that the US was in violation of the UN Charter?

:shrug:

[MrCoffee]

47. i'm not sure how that would happen...

the GA could possibly pass a resolution condemning the war, but would they? no. the SC (of which the US and UK have veto over)...well, nevermind.

I think the previous poster was referring to "informal" comments made by Kofi

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

9. If it's based upon false pretenses,...yes, it is illegal. If it violate our treaties,...yes,...

,...it is illegal.

[MrCoffee]

13. false pretenses?

i agree with you that they lied their asses off to the American people to start a bullshit war. I don't think a single one of them was sworn under oath when they did so (if they were, please correct me). Is it wrong in an ethical/moral sense? of course it is. is it illegal under the law of the United States? not so much.

for the treaty part, see my prior post.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

22. You really believe fraud HAS to be executed "under oath"? Fraud is fraud, sir.

There are laws against fraud in the U.S.A. There are laws against defrauding the U.S. government, too. There are laws against extortion, as well. There are also laws against activities attempting to obstruct the Constitution, against two or more people planning to obstruct any law and against ANY ONE seeking to bribe ANY ONE for purposes of personal gain.

There are so many laws out there that prohibit so many of this RW RAG'S actions, it's mind-boggling. BUT, until those corporacrats are defeated and removed from control,...well, you know the saying about who makes the rules. Doesn't make their activities any less criminal or illegal,...just puts them in a position to evade prosecution, for now.

You may want to turn this into a moral/ethical debate. However, these effers have engaged in a calculated plan to defy all limits placed on them BY LAW!!!

TORTURE is unlawful!
SPYING ON AMERICANS is unlawful!
DECLARATION OF WAR UNDER FALSE PRETENSES is unlawful!
MISAPPROPRIATION OF FEDERAL FUNDS is unlawful!
FRAUD is unlawful!
RICO is unlawful!
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SUNSHINE LAWS is unlawful!
LAUNDERING is unlawful!
OBSTRUCTION is unlawful!
EVASION is unlawful!
ENTRAPMENT is unlawful!
MURDER is unlawful!
MASS MURDER is just this corporacrat regime's foreign policy.

[dailykoff]

26. Domestic policy, too.

Mass murder that is. Just look at New Orleans and, of course, lower Manhattan.

[robinlynne]

27. Spying on Americans USED TO BE unlawful.

[indepat]

4. It only we could substitute our word for "Investigated"

[alfredo]

5. Yes, and we should also go after those who fell in line and carried out

their lebensraum.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. No

People should be free to petition their government to do all kinds of cockamamie and dangerous things... It the fault of the government when they listen...

[Macchendra]

10. They moved from petitioners to cabnet members...

And they changed from speaking to acting. But it was all really no different than conspiracy to commit mass murder.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

7. Instigating? No. Fraud, blackmail, obstruction, "terrorism", entrapment, treason, RICO,...

I think each and every member along with their contributors and constituents should be audited.

Follow the money,...and we may reveal where that $9 BILLION in DoD taxpayer funding disappeared, along with the other HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS which still cannot be accounted for.

[Whisp]

11. that condemnation thing seems to have a warp time machine thingie

move.on gets moved on real quick tho!

[Beelzebud]

15. They *should* be, but don't hold your breath.

[Macchendra]

23. Heh, I've learned to stop holding my breath ;-)

Yeah, this past century has been filled with so many crimes commited by the American government...

[Cleita]

16. YES! n/t

[wildbilln864]

18. Absofuckinlutely!

K&R! :grr:

[Swamp Rat]

20. RICO 'em!

[Mnemosyne]

24. Let me think about this,

HELL YES!

[cali]

25. No. I'd love to screw them against the wall

but not at the expense of the Constitution.

[Macchendra]

36. Constitution demands it.

Follow the subthread from post #8.

[cali]

37. No it doesn't .

The Constitution absolutely does not demand it. PNAC has the right to issue all sorts of opinions that I find morally repugnant and horrific. That's the First Amendment for you. Individual members even have the right serve under bushcheney- people I believe should be impeached. If they've committed criminal offenses, they should be charged under the appropriate statutes.

Please demonstrate where the Constitution demands such an investigation. And the argument you used with Mr. Coffee doesn't cut it.

[dailykoff]

28. Remember right after 911

when the PNACers were all over the airwaves with gigantic perma-grins, cheerfully telling us about the new "stateless" enemy we'd be facing for the next couple of centuries? Kristol, Dick, Rummy, that crowd? Well they're still smiling and every day they're out of shackles is an insult to we the people they've been shitting on for six years.

[133724]

29. Treason!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

levying war against the United Stated is defined in the Constitution as TREASON!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let Dirty Harry Deal with them........

[cali]

31. yeah, let' be just like the

wingnuts and toss around pointless accusations of treason. Like that'll do anything to stop the bastards.

[dailykoff]

32. I don't think mass murder is a pointless accusation.

But that's what these guys have been engaged in, domestically and abroad, for six years.

The question is, who's got big enough nuts to actually bring the charges?

[cali]

33. and not only that, can you prove it? n/t

[dailykoff]

34. Funny you should ask.

I'm not going to violate DU policy and discuss the details here in GD, but the answer is yes, I can prove it. Here's a link to a thread where I explain how:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=127965&mesg_id=127965

[cali]

35. Okay. n/t

[martymar64]

38. Exhibit A for their trials

All of them should get the noose. Every last one of the PNAC signatories.

[cali]

41. Yeah, let's

execute people for ideas. Not. If individuals have committed crimes, let's prosecute the hell out of them. But there is nothing in that document that violates our laws. Claiming it's proof of guilt of war crimes, goes profoundly against the Constitution.

[martymar64]

44. They laid the foundation for war crimes, just like Mein Kampf

The document shows their intent. Of course, that's not the only proof of their guilt. The rest of the exhibits would be in the implementation of the goals spelled out in the original docs. Their goal was to promote the idea of war of agression, which they so handily achieved with the invasion of Iraq. When Germany invaded Poland , it was considered legal under the law of the Third Reich. The judges at Nurembuerg saw it differently.

At Nuremburg, Julius Streicher never actually killed anyone, but his guilt was proven through his catapulting of the propaganda via Der Sturmer. Those who come up with the ideas are just as guilty as those who implement them. Had Goebbels not committed suicide, he would've been found guilty, too.

You may disagree, and that's fine. And given the state of our gov't and our craven representatives, the villains will never be brought to justice anyways. To let the truly guilty go free is the American way, que no? The concept of justice has left this country and will never return.

[cali]

48. No, actually it doesn't. It's vague enough

to escape that charge. I've read the entire lousy 90 pages. Whatsmore, the UN sanctioned the war. Congress voted for it. Morally deplorable? Yes. Actionable? Not so much.

The comparison to Mein Kampf doesn't work, though the comparison to Der Sturmer is closer, but still deeply flawed. Streicher committed very real crimes when he was Gauleiter. True, he was charged with incitement, but it incitement to specific acts of crimes against humanity. There simply isn't anything like that in the seminal PNAC document.

I sadly agree with you about letting the guilty go free, and I do think there are specific charges that could be brought against individual PNACers who pushed false evidence and lied, but as you said it will never happen.

[Echo In Light]

39. And that paper called for 9/1...

...the "new Pearl Harbor" in order to bolster public support for war. Which is why it will never be investigated, and why the whitewash 9/11 Commission intentionally didn't address the PNAC, nor numerous other highly suspect anomalies.

[cali]

40. Really? Where?

Look, much as I hate that document, and policies that it advocates, it did not call for 9/11. Here's the quote:

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor" (51).<22>

[Echo In Light]

43. And several months later...

That justification was ever-so-conveniently handed to em on a silver platter. Coupled with many other aspects and evidence, that's just a tad too coincidental for me not to be quite leary of. But you're clearly a staunch denier of the idea that powerful people with convergent interests, unaccountable to the public, conspire to ensure a bigger slice of the pie for themselves. And that being so, I'm certainly not going to waste time attempting to convince you or anyone otherwise.

[mmonk]

42. Yep, an investigation called an "impeachment inquiry'.

The leg work was completed while Conyers was in the minority. I have an autographed copy of it from him (George W. Bush vs. the Constitution of the United States).

[annabanana]

45. Of Course.

That is their stated modus operendi to establish an Empire. (Just another sad, doomed Empire .. I think we can do better)

[cali]

49. You may hate it, but they

had every right under the Constitution to push their agenda through that document. Those individuals who signed on to it, and later worked for bushco, did not have any right to push false evidence and lie about it. That's a different story.