Laws
And treaties violated by President George W. Bush, Vice-President
Richard Cheney, public officials under their authority, and members of
the U.S. military under their command
The
U. S. Constitution, Art. VI, para. 2,
makes treaties adopted by the U.S. part of the “law of the land.”
Thus, a violation of the U. N. Charter, Hague IV, Geneva Conventions,
etc. is also a violation of U.S. federal law.
U.S.
Federal Law 18 U.S.C. § 2441 (War Crimes Act of 1996)
makes committing a war crime, defined as: “…a grave breach in any of
the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any
protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party…”
punishable by fine, imprisonment, or death.
And the following treaties
and charters which define: wars of aggression, war crimes, crimes
against peace and crimes against humanity:
Laws
and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV)
Art.
55. The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator…of
public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates
belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It
must safeguard the capital of these properties, andadminister them in
accordance with the rules of usufruct.
U.N.
Gen. Assembly Res. 3314
Defines
the crime of aggression as “... the use of armed force by a State
against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence
of another State…or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter
of the United Nations…”
Nuremberg
Tribunal Charter
Principle
VI: “The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under
international law:
(a)
Crimes against peace: Planning,
preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in
violation of international treaties;
(b)
War crimes: …murder,
ill-treatment…of civilian population of or in occupied territory;
murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war,…plunder of public or
private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages…
(c)
Crimes against humanity:Murder,
extermination…and other inhuman acts done against any civilian
population…when such acts are done…in execution of or in connection
with any crime against peace or any war crime.”
Geneva
Conventions
A)
Protocol I, Article 75: “(1)…persons who are in the power of
a Party to the conflict…shall be treated humanely in all
circumstances…(2) The following acts are and shall remain
prohibited…whether committed by civilian or by military agents: (a)
violence to the life, health, or physical or mental well-being of
persons…(b) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating
and degrading treatment, enforced prostitution and any form of indecent
assault…and threats to commit any of the foregoing acts.”
B)
Protocol I, Art. 51: “The civilian population…shall not be
the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of
which is to spread terror among the civilian population are
prohibited.” Art. 57: (parties shall) “do everything feasible to
verify that the objectives to be attacked are neither civilians nor
civilian objects…an attack shall be cancelled or suspended if it
becomes apparent that the objective is not a military one…”
C)
Protocol I, Art. 70: “The Parties to the conflict…shall allow
and facilitate rapid and unimpeded passage of all relief consignments,
equipment and personnel…even if such assistance is destined for the
civilian population of the adverse Party.”
D)
Protocol I, Art. 35: “In any armed conflict, the right of the
Parties…to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited…It is
prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended, or
may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the
environment.”
E)
Convention I, Art. 3: “Persons taking no active part in the
hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their
arms… shall in all circumstances be treated humanely...To this end,
the following acts (in addition to those listed in Art. 75, above) are
and shall remain prohibited:…the passing of sentences and the carrying
out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly
constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are
recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.”
F)
Convention III, Art. 5: “Should any doubt arise as to whether
persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the
hands of the enemy (are prisoners of war under this Convention), such
persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such
time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.”
G)
Convention IV, Art. 33: “No protected person may be punished
for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective
penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are
prohibited.”
OATH
OF OFFICE AND UNLAWFUL ORDERS
The
military oath taken at the time of induction or commissioning reads:
"I,____________,
do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United
States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according
to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help
me God"
There
is…considerable evidence that Bush's plans are fundamentally illegal,
from both an international and domestic perspective. If the war is indeed
illegal, members of the armed forces have a legal and moral obligation to
resist illegal orders, according to their oath of induction.
The
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful
command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the
"lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the
"lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful
order". In each case,
military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful
orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including
orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and
legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who
would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct
violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.
Among
the international laws and treaties that a U.S. pre-emptive attack on Iraq
may violate are:
The Hague Convention on Land Warfare of 1899, which was reaffirmed
by the U.S. at the 1946 Nuremberg International Military Tribunals.
Resolution
on the Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons and Prevention of Nuclear War, adopted
UN General Assembly, Dec 12, 1980.
Convention
on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide;
December 9, 1948, Adopted by Resolution 260 (III) A of the UN General
Assembly.
Geneva
Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War,
adopted on August 12, 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the
Establishment of International Conventions for the Protection of Victims
of War.
Convention
on the Prohibition of Military or any Other Hostile Use of Environmental
Modification Techniques, 1108 U.N.T.S. 151,
Oct. 5, 1978.
The
Charter of the United Nations.
The
Nuremberg Principles,
which define as a crime against peace, "planning,
preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in
violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances, or
participation in a common plan or conspiracy for accomplishment of any of
the forgoing."
As
Hamilton Action for Social Change has noted "Under
the Nuremberg Principles, you have an obligation NOT to
follow the orders of leaders who are preparing crimes against peace and
crimes against humanity. We are all bound by what U.S. Chief
Prosecutor Robert K. Jackson declared in 1948: [T]he
very essence of the [Nuremberg] Charter is that individuals have
intentional duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience
imposed by the individual state." At the Tokyo War Crimes
trial, it was further declared "[A]nyone
with knowledge of illegal activity and an opportunity to do something
about it is a potential criminal under international law unless the person
takes affirmative measures to prevent commission of the crimes."
In a report written by Andrew
Lichterman, John Burroughs, of the Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy
and the Western States Legal Foundation, and Michael Ratner, President
of the Center for Constitutional Rights, New York, and Jules Lobel,
Professor of Law at the University of Pittsburgh entitled "The United
Nations Charter and the Use of Force Against Iraq," noted
that:
"Under the UN Charter, there are only two circumstances in which the
use of force is permissible: in collective or individual self-defense
against an actual or imminent armed attack: and when the Security Council
has directed or authorized use of force to maintain or restore
international peace and security. Neither of those circumstances now
exists. Absent one of them, U.S. use of force against Iraq is
unlawful."
The
authors were specifically referring to Article 51 of the UN Charter
on the right to self-defense. Nothing that Iraq has done would call that
provision into effect. The report also states that:
"There
is no basis in international law for dramatically expanding the concept of
self-defense, as advocated in the Bush Administration's September, 2002
"National Security Strategy" to authorize
"preemptive" - really preventive - strikes against states based
on potential threats arising from possession or development of chemical,
biological, or nuclear weapons and links to terrorism. Such an expansion
would destabilize the present system of UN Charter restraints on the use
of force. Further, there is no claim or publicly disclosed evidence that
Iraq is supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorist.
The Bush administration's reliance on the need for "regime
change" in Iraq as a basis for use of force is barred by Article
2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits "the threat or use of
force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any
state." Thus the rationales being given to the world, the American
public, and the armed forces are illegal on their face.
It
is important to remember that Saddam Hussein was an important
"ally" during the 1980s and that many of the weapons that may be
faced by our armed forces will bear a "Made in the USA" label.
The issue here is not the "evil' of Saddam Hussein, nor the
international community doing nothing, but an illegal march to war by the
Bush administration.
In
addition to the violations of international laws, which have been
incorporated into U.S. law, the… attack on Iraq is a direct violation of
national law as Bush claims that he has the authority to decide whether
the U.S. will go to war or not. The U.S. Constitution is very
explicit on this point. Only the Congress has the authority to declare
war, Article 1, section 8, Par. 11. Congress does not have the
right to give that power away, or to delegate that power to the president
or anyone else. The President as the "Commander in Chief" (Article
2, section 2, Par. 1) can command the armed forces in times of peace
and war, but he does not have the authority to declare the war or
determine if that war is to occur, especially if he is engaged in illegal
conduct in violation of the Constitution itself or his oath of office. The
Constitution spells out very clearly the responsibility of the
President and his oath, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will
to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution
of the United States." (Article 2, section 2, Par. 8). The
President also has the primary duty to make sure "that the laws be
faithfully executed," (Article 2, section 3).
JOINT
CONGRESSIONAL RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
"The
resolution before us today is not only a product of haste; it is also a
product of presidential hubris. This resolution is breathtaking in its
scope. It redefines the nature of defense, and reinterprets the
Constitution to suit the will of the Executive Branch. It would give the
President blanket authority to launch a unilateral preemptive attack on a
sovereign nation that is perceived to be a threat to the United States.
This is an unprecedented and unfounded interpretation of the President's
authority under the Constitution, not to mention the fact that it stands
the charter of the United Nations on its head."
Senator
Robert Byrd of West Virginia, remarks
made on the floor of the U.S. Senate, October 3, 2002).
IRAQ WAR
RESOLUTION
107th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. J. RES. 114
Passed: October 11, 2002
JOINT
RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Whereas in
1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal
occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to
liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security
of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council
resolutions relating to Iraq;
Whereas
after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United
Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq
unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear,
biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and
develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States
intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that
Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale
biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear
weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear
weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
Whereas
Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to
thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities,
which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on
October 31, 1998;
Whereas
in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's
continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United
States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to
be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international
obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in
accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States,
to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';
Whereas
Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the
United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf
region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its
international obligations by, among other things, continuing
to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons
capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and
supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
Whereas
Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security
Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian
population thereby threatening international peace and security in the
region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi
citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman,
and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas the
current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to
use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own
people; Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its
continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United
States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President
Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United
States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions
of the United Nations Security Council;
Whereas
members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks
on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks
that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist
organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and
safety of United States citizens;
Whereas
the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the
gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass
destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Whereas
Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass
destruction, the risk that the
current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a
surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or
provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the
extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its
citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United
States to defend itself;
Whereas
United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use
of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council
Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel
Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and
security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and
refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in
violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991),
repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations
Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or
United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations
Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);
Whereas in
the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution
(Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United
States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council
Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security
Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and
677';
Whereas in
December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of
all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security
Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use
of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that
Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations
Security Council Resolution 688 and`constitutes a continuing threat to
the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that
Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals
of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';
Whereas the
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of
Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support
efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the
emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Whereas on
September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work
with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge'
posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also
making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced,
and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will
be unavoidable';
Whereas the
United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's
ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its
development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of
its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations
Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national
security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on
terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions
be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
Whereas
Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism
through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the
President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists
and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or
organizations;
Whereas the
President and Congress are determined to continue to take all
appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist
organizations, including those
nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed,
or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or
harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the
President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order
to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United
States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization
for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
Whereas it
is in the national security interests of the United States to restore
international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now,
therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1.
SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
SEC. 2.
SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The
Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all
relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him
in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive
action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy
of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3.
AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces
of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in
order to--
(1) defend the national security
of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq;
and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions
regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the
authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall,
prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no
later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to
the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro
tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other
peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national
security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by
Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United
Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the
United States and other countries continuing to
take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist
organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who
planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that
occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of
the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is
intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the
meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint
resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS. (a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least
once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant
to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the
exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning
for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are
completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq
Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any
report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any
other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise
required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting
requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such
reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the
Congress.
(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by
section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this
section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of
section 3 of such resolution.