In the game of chess the objective is to remove your opponent’s king in as few moves as possible. The object of the game is to checkmate your opponent’s king, whereby the king is under immediate attack (in “check”) and there is no way to remove it from attack on the next move. The game is over as soon as you capture your opponent’s king and your opponent surrenders to you. Wars of aggression can be ended quickly simply by applying the game of chess to your self-defense strategy. Defend your people by taking the course of action that will quickly capture and remove your opponent’s leadership.
There is absolutely no need, cause or justification for anyone to start a war. Any international incident can be resolved peacefully. Those who start wars are nothing more than criminals with a criminal intent to cause the death of another human being. The most effective course of action to end any war is to go after the person or persons who gave the order to attack another country. One person does not have the authority to launch a war against another especially in a democratic society. If a leader of one country decides to go to war with another country that leader is committing crimes that include crimes against peace, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
International law and domestic law allow lethal force to be used in self-defense against armed attacks.
Whether it’s George W Bush or Barack Hussein Obama engaged in an unprovoked attacks against Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan or the United States own terrorist cell, the CIA, kidnapping foreign citizens from around the World, it’s legal to use lethal force in response to those kinds of attacks. There’s no special protection given to heads of state that protects them from the otherwise lawful use of lethal force in self-defense. Nuremberg established that heads of state have no immunity from responsibility for aggressive war. There’s no logical legal principle that says it’s better to spare George W Bush or Barack Hussein Obama’s life, when they are the head war criminals who started the war and continue to wage wars of aggressions against sovereign foreign states and kill and continue to kill tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
Aggression unopposed becomes a contagious disease. ~ Jimmy Carter
Laws of armed conflict
Any uniformed member of the Military is a lawful target under the laws of armed conflict. If he is the head policy maker (commander-in-chief, prime minister, president, emperor, chancellor, king or queen) in deciding to launch an aggressive war, then he’s committing an international crime; denying him any right to the kind of protection we give hospital workers or Red Cross workers or the like. If we want to deter aggression, we have to extract a cost from those who are making the decisions. A warmongering leader is not willing to put his own safety at risk, and so it’s very important that we make it clear that we have the legal right to go after even heads of state engaged in massive international aggression. George W Bush needlessly and recklessly sacrificed over 4000 of his country’s young men and women in his war against Iraq. He and Obama are certainly willing to give up thousands more in their wars of terrorism and aggression against Iraq and Afghanistan and threats and acts of aggression against Iran, Pakistan and Yemen. George W Bush was not willing to put his own safety at risk, and so it’s very important that we make it clear that the US people and the international community have the legal right to go after even heads of state engaged in massive international aggression.
The only logical and legal course of action to defend ones country and countrymen from an unlawful military attack from another country is to hold the person or persons who gave the order to attack, accountable for their criminal acts. Instead of retaliating against the people of the country whose leader ordered the attack on your country and countrymen one should only attack those leaders who gave the order. No one else should suffer or pay for the crimes of the war leaders. Only the leaders who order their country to attack and murder the people of another country should suffer and pay with their lives. The Nuremberg Trial established “Legal Self-Defense” against wars of aggression, kidnappings, torture and acts of aggression against another state.
The honorable and patriotic course of action to end any war is to target those leaders who gave the order to illegally attack, destroy and kill the people of another country. Every country and their people have the right to self-defense and their legal rights include only attacks against the attacking leadership, not against innocent civilians. As soon as the leader or leaders who gave the order to attack and kill your people are eliminated then the war will end. If someone takes over command of the military forces after the war leaders are eliminated and they too order more attacks against you and your country and your people, then they too are legal and legitimate targets. Infiltrating the enemy’s country and attacking only the leadership will end any war quickly and deter future warmongering leaders from ordering their armed froces to attack and kill another country and its people.
Had the Allied nations succeeded in killing Adolf Hitler at the beginning of WWII the War would have ended a lot sooner and millions of lives would have been spared. A war that needlessly killed 23,100,000 Soviets, 449,800 English, 418,500 US, 5,600,000 Polish, 2,700,000 Japanese, 7,233,000 Germans, 567,600 French, 20,000,000 Chinese, 45,300 Canadians for an estimated death toll of roughly 72 million.
If a team of snipers had been sent into Germany with the sole mission of killing Adolf Hilter six million European Jews would have been saved from the Holocaust. Snipers are the biggest psychological deterrent on the battlefield. The mere rumor they’re on the battlefield can send shivers through the enemy ranks. Imagine what a team of snipers inserted behind enemy lines could do to the aggressor’s chain of command. It does not matter how powerful a country might be. It would not matter if the aggressor had the most technologically advanced fighter jets, bombers, tank, or warships, once a sniper is able to infiltrate the aggressor’s country there is nowhere to hide. A good sniper could gain entry as a diplomat, tourist or business person. A good sniper would not need to smuggle in his or her weapon as he or she would have been trained to use the weapon of choice of the aggressive nation and acquire their weapon from the aggressive nation’s own police and military or even from citizens with hunting rifles. It took 3 weeks for the US law enforcement agencies to find and capture the Beltway sniper in October 2002 in Washington, D.C. How long would it take to find a team of highly trained and motivated snipers? That is if you even knew they were already in country.
The Nuremberg trials sets legal precedents in order to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.
While the Nuremberg trials are, these days, seldom invoked or discussed, they were and still are, in the words of Tribunal President Sir Geoffrey Lawrence, “unique in the history of the jurisprudence of the world”. Among the most groundbreaking aspects was the drive to formally criminalise three categories of crimes, and to establish responsibility by individuals for these crimes. This was simply unprecedented.
The effort to try the Germans in an international forum was directed in large part by the United States. The chief U.S. prosecutor, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, opened the prosecution.
Today, when the Nuremberg trials are remembered, they are remembered primarily for the prosecution and punishment of individuals for genocide. Equally important at the time though, especially in the first trial, was the focus on aggressive war.
Thus, the first sentence of Justice Jackson’s opening statement: “The privilege of opening the first trial in history for crimes against the peace of the world imposes a grave responsibility.”
Crimes against peace and the responsibility for them were defined in Article 6, the heart of the Charter of the IMT: “The tribunal…shall have the power to try and punish persons who…whether as individuals or as members of organisations, committed any of the following crimes…for which there shall be individual responsibility: (a) Crimes Against Peace, namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances…”
The desire was not only to punish individuals for crimes but to set an international moral and legal precedent for the future. Indeed, before the end of 1946, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously adopted Resolution 95 (1), affirming “the principles of International Law recognised by the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the judgment of the Tribunal.”
Founded in the aftermath of World War II, the United Nations invoked in the first sentence of the preamble, the single most fundamental goal: “…to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind…”
To this end the United Nations Charter explicitly forbids armed aggression and violations of the sovereignty of any state by any other state, except in immediate self defense (Article 2, Sec. 4 and Articles 39 and 51).
Invoking the precedent set by the United States and the Allies at Nuremberg, there can be no doubt that the U.S. led invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a war of aggression. There was no imminent threat to American security nor to the security of the world. The invasion violated the U.N. Charter as well as U.N. Security Council Resolution #1441.
As a war of aggression, the invasion falls into the Nuremberg category of Crimes Against Peace. As such, there is individual responsibility for this crime.
Thus, if Americans chose to be bound by the precedent which they helped set and for which they punished leaders of World War II Germany, they would arrest and prosecute those individuals responsible for the invasion of Iraq: George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and their enablers in government and in the media.
Those who justify the invasion of Iraq, invoking the U.S. self-declared mission to rid the world of evil, would do well to remember the words of Justice Jackson: “Our position is that whatever grievances a nation may have, however objectionable it finds the status quo, aggressive warfare is an illegal means for settling these grievances or for altering these conditions.”
And, for those who have difficulty visualising American leaders as defendants in a criminal trial, Justice Jackson’s words again: “(T)he ultimate step in avoiding periodic wars, which are inevitable in a system of international lawlessness, is to make statesmen responsible to law. And let me make clear that while this law is first applied against German aggressors, the law includes, and if it is to serve a useful purpose it must condemn, aggression by any other nations, including those which sit here now in judgement. We are able to do away with domestic tyranny and violence and aggression by those in power against the rights of their own people only when we make all men answerable to the law. This trial represents mankind’s desperate effort to apply the discipline of the law to statesmen who have used their powers of state to attack the foundations of the world’s peace and to commit aggression against the rights of their neighbours.”
The Bush and Blair administrations commenced a war against Iraq and its people in defiance of the United Nations Security Council. The Iraq war is unlawful because it was waged in contravention of international law. The relevant articles that prohibit one nation or alliance of nations waging war against any other nation or nations are embodied in Chapter VII of the 1945 United Nations Charter under the caption “Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression”. No member or members of the United Nations are entitled to wage a war against any nation in defiance of the UN Security Council. It is also clear that a “war of choice” is not permitted. A “war of necessity” in self defense if attacked by another country is permitted under Article 51 – this too is a temporary measure till the Security Council takes steps necessary to maintain international peace and security. Article 51 does not legitimize a pre-emptive war against any nation on the pretext that there is an imminent threat of attack by the said nation.
Aggressors do not have the legal right or authority to declare self-defense.
The people of Afghanistan and Iraq were attacked by the US. The people of Afghanistan and Iraq are victims of the US wars of aggression. The civilian population have been and are still being attacked by the US military - clearly defined as war crimes according to International and US laws. The Taliban are not terrorists. They were the legal governing political party of Afghanistan before the unlawful war of aggression by the US and NATO forces. The Taliban are doing what every patriotic citizen would do to defend their country and countrymen when attacked by a foreign state - they are resisting. The Taliban are Afghan civilians who have been forced to take up arms against the invaders in order to defend their country and fellow countrymen from the brutal and unlawful occupation. The Taliban did not attack the US on September 11, 2001. Iran did not attack the US on September 11, 2001. There is no threat to the US from Iran. The US has been planning to attack Iran since the Bush administration. Planning for such an attack is a criminal offense. Planning for such an attack is a crime against peace and a crime against humanity. The international community have the legal right to go after even US heads of state who have planned for, is planning for or engages in illegal aggressive wars.
“When freedom does not have a purpose, when it does not wish to know anything about the rule of law engraved in the hearts of men and women, when it does not listen to the voice of conscience, it turns against humanity and society.” ~ Pope John Paul II
