- The War on Terror has claimed millions of victims in
this country as well as in the government's actions abroad. However there
is one very high-profile casualty that has still not been reported. The
victim was seriously wounded when the War on Afghanistan began, but on
May 1, 2003 the critical victim died. That victim was and is the US military's
Chain of Command.
-
- The pledge taken by both officers and enlisted personnel
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""
-
- "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." (1)
-
- The above constitutes the issuance of an illegal order.
While US enlisted personnel have no way of knowing the specifics behind
the legalities of the orders they were given for the attacks upon both
Afghanistan and Iraq-the Officer Corp and in particular the General Staff
were not only qualified to make such determinations: they were obligated
under the UCMJ to do just that-and they failed then, just as they have
continued to fail to this point.
-
- This constitutes the most serious breach of military
obligations that were sworn to under oath: Yet each man or woman who failed
to disobey this president, also failed us and the world because this meant
that they were willing to support criminal illegalities that led directly
to the deaths of millions of people and among them, according to the Veteran's
Administration, some 73,816 have died since we began fighting the war in
Iraq way back in 1991. That's one hell of a war crime and it does not count
the millions that were also killed by US troops in that wart! (2)
-
- There is a dispute about the numbers cited, but it is
not the numbers that make this a crime: It is the fact that so many with
the responsibility to know and the authority to stop it, totally failed
in their duty to their sworn oaths, which incidentally is the only reason
for the existence of their profession.
-
- Most of this conflicted view, of what constitutes a legal
order when given by the President of the United States, comes from that
last line in the oath. Too many people seem to think that if an order is
given by the president, then it must be lawful, and therefore must be obeyed:
which is not true. The reason that the command to Disobey an Unlawful Order
is in the UCMJ, is to prevent an errant Commander-in-Chief, from becoming
a unilateral military dictator.
-
- Everyone in the US military above the rank of Colonel
ought to have enough of an education and a military awareness to be able
to question and decide the legality of those commands that so clearly violated
all the settled laws involved in the Rules of War. Maybe this is why the
Decider has chosen to use almost as many private contractors in his wars
as US military personnel! There is no statutory limitation on murder, which
is what those orders that Bush gave-directly led to: Hence the title of
this article.
-
- Simultaneously, with the unreported death of the US Military
Chain- of-Command, another very interesting corpse is being dug-up and
has almost come back to life, as a real and present-danger to the would-
be Owners of the world. That previously pronounced "corpse" is
none other than the conflicted events surrounding 911 and the fraudulent
"investigations" that followed in its wake.
-
- "Is our nation prepared to face those rude shocks?
-
- The unraveling began within weeks of the release of the
9/11 Commission Report (in July 2004) with the shocking revelation that
members of the 9/11 commission were convinced that government officials,
including NORAD generals, had deceived them during the investigation in
essence, had lied to their faces during the hearings.[1] According to the
Washington Post the members of the commission vented their frustrations
at a special meeting in the summer of 2004. The panel even considered referring
the matter to the Justice Department for a criminal investigation.
-
- The unraveling continued in 2006 with the release of
a follow-up volume, Without Precedent, authored by the two men who had
co- chaired the commission, Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton. The men
had come under increasing fire ever since the release of their final report
for presiding over what many now believe was a failed investigation. Stung
by so much criticism, Kean and Hamilton felt the need to explain (and defend)
themselves. The gist of their 2006 book is easily summarized. They write:
"We were set up to fail."
-
- The bleeding continued in May 2007 with the stunning
announcement that former BYU physicist Steven Jones had found residues
of thermite, a high temperature explosive, in the dust of the collapsed
World Trade Center.[2] The discovery has the gravest implications for our
nation, and probably for this reason the announcement went reported in
the US media. In a later chapter I will discuss this important evidence
in detail.
-
- Yet another startling revelation occurred in December
2007 when we learned that the CIA destroyed evidence, in the form of audio-
tapes, deemed vital to the official investigation.[3]" (3)
-
- Where then has this led what's left of the United States?
The San Francisco Chronicle managed to unearth a large part of the point
in doing much of the above:
- "Beginning in 1999, the government has entered into
a series of single-bid contracts with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown
and Root (KBR) to build detention camps at undisclosed locations within
the United States. The government has also contracted with several companies
to build thousands of railcars, some reportedly equipped with shackles,
ostensibly to transport detainees."
-
- And for what reason are concentration camps needed in
each state of the Union?
-
-
-
-
-
- Sect. 1042 of the 2007 National Defense Authorization
Act (NDAA), "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies,"
gives the executive the power to invoke martial law. For the first time
in more than a century, the president is now authorized to use the military
in response to "a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, a terrorist
attack or any other condition in which the President determines that domestic
violence has occurred to the extent that state officials cannot maintain
public order."
-
- The Military Commissions Act of 2006, rammed through
Congress just before the 2006 midterm elections, allows for the indefinite
imprisonment of anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on
a list of "terrorist" organizations, or who speaks out against
the government's policies. The law calls for secret trials for citizens
and noncitizens alike." (4)
-
- Still beyond all of this crime and murder, treason and
tyranny there lies a single glaring problem. The "goal" of the
self- appointed Owners was to bring down this nation, to dismantle every
single pillar of the society and to utterly destroy our system of government
as well as our lives. They've been at this 'forever' and yet one must ask
"What's the point in doing this!"
-
- Once Pandora's Box gets opened, which is the "Next
Big Thing." no one will be able to put that vile genie back in the
bottle again. The attack upon Iran that has been coordinated and planned
for some time by Cheney and Netanyahu, and will most certainly spill over
into several other nations almost immediately. From the moment that the
missiles begin to cross the oceans, life almost anywhere becomes unthinkable.
"Where's the Profit for anyone, in a world gone mad and a planet turned
to ashes!"
-
- If those camps begin to be filled with their designated
50 million occupants, what happens then to this already crippled economy:
we'll be nothing but a fourth-world country selling off the remainder of
our assets and our natural resources to whichever force has been holding
our markers for all these years of Debt & Denial. (5)
-
- Maybe the Owners are planning to sell the prisoners in
the camps: because that's about the only scenario that makes any sense.
Who will be able to come up with a way to feed fifty million inmates during
the Depression that's certain to follow any nuclear exchange? We have known
for at least the last seven years that those who say they represent us
are for the most part completely insane. Yet we seem to have chosen not
to confront them on any of their crimes: We might want to start by demanding
the resignations of everyone that KNEW too much and did exactly NOTHING!
-
- ADDITION
-
- From:Dennis Joyce
- To: Jim Kirwan
- Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008
-
-
- Jim,
-
- You only published the Enlisted oath of enlistment. The
officer's oath of office is different.
-
- "I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer
in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____
do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution
of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will
bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation
freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that
I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which
I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959,
for officers.)
-
- Note that there is no requirement to obey any order of
the President as there is in the enlisted oath. The damned Officers have
an out for ending this mess and arresting that worthless lump in the White
House.
-
- Best,
- Dennis Joyce
- 1SG, USA, Retired
-
-
- From Jim Kirwan
-
- Thanks Dennis!
-
- I will ask that this CRITICAL piece of information be
added in full to the article, because as you said so well: "There
is no requirement to obey any order of the President
- as there is in the enlisted oath." (which of
course changes the whole thrust of the article). It's amazing because I
asked many people before writing about this - and even the counterpunch
article fails to mention this key point.
-
- Thank God for you and the audience that is still awake
and takes the trouble to write...
-
- kirwan
-
-
- From Dennis Joyce
- To Jim Kirwan
-
- I have a higher degree of interest in all things military
and historical. Since so few of the general population actually comes in
contact with the military, they have no way of knowing that separate oaths
of office exist.
-
- Which is why I chose to pursue this in the first place.
I heard about it from a Vietnam Vet on a call in radio program that mentioned
the oath he took was different from the one his son (a recent enlistee)
took upon entering the service. The son's enlisted oath apparently had
the phrase " and I will obey ALL orders of the president of the United
States" added to " to protect and defend the Constitution of
the United States" - which began this process for me. I couldn't remember
what I swore to back in 1957, so I began to try and track this down.
-
- The 'other' mystery is to whom does one send these potential
conflicts of interest - so I decided the best way to air the problems inherent
in the whole affair was to write about it. Actually your corrected information
makes the article stronger not weaker, because it reinforces the idea that
what was attemted here, was and is an effort to mislead the Officer
Corp and reinforce the idea that the Commander-in-Chierf is in reality
little more than a Dictator that can use the standing forces of the United
States to enforce his own personal agendas - regardless of the constitutional
provisions against exactly this!
-
- What really fries my shorts is the blithe way our treasonous
congress ignores their constitutional and lawful responsibilities to provisioning
the Militia. That is the only legal military entity in the country, even
to this day.
-
- The congress has been "on-board" in all of
this Double-Speak since it first began!
-
- Thanks again,
- Dennis
-
-
- kirwanstudios@sbcglobal.net
-
- 1) A Duty to Disobey Lawful Orders
- http://www.counterpunch.org/mosqueda02272003.html
-
- 2) U.S. Department of Veterans: 73,846 US troops dead,
1,620,906 disabled
- http://quebec.indymedia.org/en/node/28224? PHPSESSID=42cf5d64711fa8ffa6d3baa065657e95
-
- 3) Unraveling of the Official 911 Story Continues
- http://www.rense.com/general80/humpty.htm
-
- 4) San Fran's Newspaper Exposes Elite Control Scheme
Feb 21, 08
- http://www.commoninterest.info/
-
- 5) Who Owns You!
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiHOP2P_NTA
-
-
- BACKGROUND:
-
- Freedom to Fascism
- http://heyokamagazine.com/HEYOKA.9.FreedonToFascism.htm
|
