War Resistance Poetry from a War Resister
http://www.pricetagsart.org/video3.html
Showing posts with label war resistance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label war resistance. Show all posts
War is Bankrupting the U.S.
Here I am posing for a photograph after a weekly peace vigil that I participate in. The vigil has been going on for almost 10 years every Friday. It's sponsored by the Olympia chapter of the Fellowship of Reconciliation. It's at the North end of the Percival Landing City Park in Olympia Washington. Everyone is welcome.
War is bankrupting the U.S.. Yes it is. Imagine taking materials and energy that are poured into the destructive war economy and turning them toward positive and beneficial efforts. We could all be very wealthy economically if our government and its keepers weren't bent on destruction and domination.
bert
War is bankrupting the U.S.. Yes it is. Imagine taking materials and energy that are poured into the destructive war economy and turning them toward positive and beneficial efforts. We could all be very wealthy economically if our government and its keepers weren't bent on destruction and domination.
bert
Marine in Afghanistan to US Civilians: Do what you can to get us out of here
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91881419
Here's a great segment, I was impressed by a statement from a Marine at about 4 minutes and 22 seconds into the program. The Marine says (I'm paraphrasing): My question is for the civilians. What are you doing? What are you doing to get us out of here?
Check it out for yourself.
Here's a great segment, I was impressed by a statement from a Marine at about 4 minutes and 22 seconds into the program. The Marine says (I'm paraphrasing): My question is for the civilians. What are you doing? What are you doing to get us out of here?
Check it out for yourself.
Chiroux on Democracy Now
Here's a link: www.democracynow.org/2008/6/17/us_army_sergeant_matthis_chiroux_refuses
from the show:
from the show:
SGT. MATTHIS CHIROUX: Well, I’m not absent without leave until they tell me I’m absent without leave. To me, I’m following the US Constitution. I’m upholding the law, and I’m going to continue behaving as such. I refuse to be labeled or be shamed by these actions. I refuse to behave like a criminal. I am going to stay here in Washington, D.C., until at least Thursday. I’ve been here for the past two-and-a-half weeks lobbying members of Congress to come out in official support of resisters to the Iraq occupation for cause of its unconstitutional nature, as well as being waged in violation of international laws and the like. I believe we’ve made progress, and I believe—Thursday, I believe members of Congress will be coming out in support of war resisters.
Chiroux Refuses to Deploy to Iraq
A month ago, Matthis Chiroux bravely announced his courageous intention to refuse deployment in a war which he believes to be illegal. His unit deployed today, without him. Chiroux is an Army reporter, and says he has heard enough stories of what has gone on in Iraq to know that the occupation is immoral and illegal.
Also hear Matthis Chiroux interviewed on antiwar radio by Scott Horton: http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/06/04/matthis-chiroux/:
US soldier refuses to report for active duty in IraqI'm not sure if this link will be permanent: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jlR6Ky_n9NjGaMqzy4Ks9bk-PThw
WASHINGTON (AFP) — A month after US army reservist Matthis Chiroux publicly refused to deploy to Iraq, the former sergeant on Sunday set himself up for possible prosecution by failing to report for active duty with his unit in South Carolina.
"Tonight at midnight, I may face further action from the army for refusing to reactivate to participate in the Iraq occupation," Chiroux told reporters in Washington.
"I stand here today in defense of those who have been stripped of their voices in this occupation, the warriors of this nation...", Chiroux read from a statement as his father Rob, who had travelled to Washington from Alabama to support his son on Father's Day, stood beside him.
...
Also hear Matthis Chiroux interviewed on antiwar radio by Scott Horton: http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/06/04/matthis-chiroux/:
Here's a link to another interview at Courage to Resist: http://www.couragetoresist.org/x/content/view/595/1/Scott Horton Interviews Matthis Chiroux
June 4th, 2008Sgt. Matthis Chiroux discusses his refusal to redeploy to Iraq because of the illegality of the invasion, his role as an Army propagandist, how the Iraq Veterans Against the War helped him realize he wasn’t alone in opposing the illegal occupation and the widespread and neglected PTSD suffered by so many vets.
MP3 here. (35:26)
Sgt. Matthis Chiroux, who served in the Army until being honorably discharged last summer after over four years of service in Afghanistan, Japan, Europe and the Phillipines, today publicly announced his intention to refuse orders to deploy to Iraq. Sgt. Chiroux made his announcement in the Cannon House Office Building Rotunda after members of Iraq Veterans Against the War testified before the Congressional Progressive Caucus during Winter Soldier on the Hill.
Winter Soldier Northwest
Here's a link to a set of 17 photos from the day's events (panel presentations at Seattle Town Hall, and the march): http://www.flickr.com/photos/rwhitlock/sets/72157605384315166/
Video by Elliot Stoller
Find more video coverage by Stoller here: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=E195AEBA67A1F3E0M
Iraq Veterans Against the War Winter Soldier Northwest, May 31st, 2008
A series of panels, including a panel of Veterans of the Iraq War, spoke about the continuing horror of the occupation of Iraq. The series of panel presentations were followed by a well attended march through the streets of downtown Seattle.
Panelists spoke about ongoing crimes relating to the occupation, and the negative consequences on the health and well-being of both the occupied and the occupiers. The Iraq people suffer grievous harms, but the soldiers who are asked to perform the duties of an unjust and illegal military action are also made to suffer grievous harm.
The ratio of war injured to war dead for OIF is 8:1 - and that only includes hard injuries, i.e. it doesn't include injuries which are psychological in nature.
Other panel topics included how illegal wars of aggression are enabled by a fundamental racism that exists in society (and especially within military cultures.) Attention was also given to the fraudulent nature of pre-war-pro-war propaganda, a foreign policy of global dominance as it relates to Middle East petroleum resources, and the role of media in the war disaster. The war was sold to the American people as a bill of goods. The invasion was predicated on lies.
Supporting the GI Resistance movement is one of the most promising avenues for stopping the illegal and immoral foreign policy aggression of the government of the United States.
- bert
[June 6, 2008: P.S. Also see this great documentary of the event - this is great coverage - posted on Seattle IndyMedia: http://seattle.indymedia.org/en/2008/06/267013.shtml /June 6,2008]
Matthis Chiroux Refusal to Deploy to Iraq: "The War is Illegal"
June 15, 2008 update: Chiroux refuses deployment
Matthis Chiroux has demonstrated a principled and courageous stand by refusing to deploy to Iraq with the Army of the USA. Here's a story about him from Courage to Resist:
Matthis Chiroux has demonstrated a principled and courageous stand by refusing to deploy to Iraq with the Army of the USA. Here's a story about him from Courage to Resist:
go to original
Sgt Matthis Chiroux declares Iraq recall resistance
"This occupation is unconstitutional and illegal and I hereby lawfully refuse to participate... I refuse to participate in the occupation of Iraq."Courage to Resist. May 15, 2008
Sgt. Matthis Chiroux served in the Army until being honorably discharged from active duty last summer after over four years in Afghanistan, Japan, Europe and the Philippines. Today he publicly announced that he is refusing orders to be recalled from the Army's Inactive Ready Reserve (IRR) to deploy to Iraq. Matthis took this courageous stand in the Cannon House Office Building Rotunda after fellow members of Iraq Veterans Against the War testified before the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
Video of Sgt. Matthis Chiroux's May 15, 2008 statement
Sgt. Matthis Chiroux. May 15, 2008
Good afternoon. My name is Sgt. Matthis Chiroux, and I served in the Army as a Photojournalist until being honorably discharged last summer after over four years of service in Afghanistan, Japan, Europe and the Philippines. As an Army journalist whose job it was to collect and filter servicemember's stories, I heard many stomach-churning testimonies of the horrors and crimes taking place in Iraq. For fear of retaliation from the military, I failed to report these crimes, but never again will I allow fear to silence me. Never again will I fail to stand.
In February, I received a letter from the Army ordering my return to active duty, for the purpose of mobilization for Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Thanks in great part to the truths of war being fearlessly spoken by my fellow IVAW members, I stand before you today with the strength, clarity and resolve to declare to the military and the world that this Soldier will not be deploying to Iraq.
This occupation is unconstitutional and illegal and I hereby lawfully refuse to participate as I will surely be a party to war crimes. Furthermore, deployment in support of [an] illegal war violates all of my core values as a human being, but in keeping with those values, I choose to remain in the United States to defend myself from charges brought by the Army if they so wish to pursue them. I refuse to participate in the occupation of Iraq.
To donate to Iraq Veterans Against the War Legal Fund to support Matthis, use their online donation form and select “Legal Fund” under special projects. If you would like to send a message of support to Sgt Matthis Chiroux, email thankyoumatthis@ivaw.org
Militarism and Military Spending Signify Theft from Needy
Did you know that 54% of federal income tax revenue will be spent (based on projections for the 2009 budget) on military? The world is rife with economic exploitation, of the Earth's resources, of human labor. Inequitable human labor in a day and age of high technology is not only unnecessary, but immoral and unacceptable as well.
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." - Dwight David EisenhowerFrom the War Resister's League [original charts available at link]:
Bombings Kill Dozens in Iraq
Questions:
What is the USA doing in Iraq? Did Iraq pose a threat to the USA prior to the invasion? Were there Weapons of Mass Destruction? Why do millions of Iraqis suffer, their civilian infrastructure so widely reduced to ruin? Is it because of the petroleum resource? Were these deaths necessary? Were they preventable? If the occupation is unjust - if it is wrongful - what can you and I do to stop it?
What is the USA doing in Iraq? Did Iraq pose a threat to the USA prior to the invasion? Were there Weapons of Mass Destruction? Why do millions of Iraqis suffer, their civilian infrastructure so widely reduced to ruin? Is it because of the petroleum resource? Were these deaths necessary? Were they preventable? If the occupation is unjust - if it is wrongful - what can you and I do to stop it?
Two Bombings Kill At Least 26 in N. Iraqgo to original
Officials Call for Increase in Security Forces
By Joshua Partlow
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, December 26, 2007; A14
BAGHDAD, Dec. 25 -- Two bombs ripped through a pair of cities north of Baghdad on Tuesday, causing some of the worst carnage in the country in recent weeks and revealing that, despite the relative calm that has taken hold, insurgent groups remain capable of carrying out devastating attacks.
The morning bombs were detonated in Baiji, an oil refinery town, and Baqubah, a provincial capital where the Sunni insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq has lost some of its earlier dominance. The attacks, which killed at least 26 people and wounded as many as 100, prompted calls by officials for an increase in Iraqi soldiers and police in the northern provinces to quell the violence.
In Baqubah, tensions were particularly high because of allegations by Iraqis that, hours before the bombing there, U.S. forces had executed two members of an American-backed volunteer force. The U.S. military denied the accusations.
The bombing in Baiji, near a checkpoint outside a two-story housing complex for oil industry employees, was the more devastating of the two attacks Tuesday...
LTE re: protest and media
I just sent this off to The Olympian after some considerable wrangling with the word count. I like it. Except for the part in paragraph two, which is kind of confusing. I was trying to pack too many ideas into 250 words.
I intended to communicate that embedded reports have become the norm in the mainstream media. This allows untoward influence over the quality, context and content of journalistic reports.
Separately, though similarly, I intended to draw attention to the fact that the media reprints - as truth - with little to no question about the veracity of the statements, or the integrity of what are virtually anonymous sources, stories that originate from military communications personnel (who have incentive to portray the stories under a favorable, and hence oftentimes false, light.) A good example of this is the media reporting of what happened in and around Fallujah, Iraq soon after the opening days of the invasion/occupation in 2003. Dahr Jamail has compiled good reports about the discrepancy between on the ground reality and reports that the media was being fed by military sources and subsequently presenting as truth in a regurgitated form.
So here's my decidedly imperfect letter:
The blockades were, for me, an attempt to serve the interests of justice by shutting down an intolerable and immoral crusade for control over the petroleum resource of Iraq, a crusade for geopolitical and economic dominance.
I think there is a valid argument to be made that the protests were legal because they were an attempt to hold an Executive Administration that has run riot with the military resources of the USA to account for its wrongdoing. Congress is delinquent. There is abundant evidence to reasonable conclude that prominent members of the Bush Administration have committed heinous and grievous wrongdoings in their respective quests for global dominance and personal power.
I intended to communicate that embedded reports have become the norm in the mainstream media. This allows untoward influence over the quality, context and content of journalistic reports.
Separately, though similarly, I intended to draw attention to the fact that the media reprints - as truth - with little to no question about the veracity of the statements, or the integrity of what are virtually anonymous sources, stories that originate from military communications personnel (who have incentive to portray the stories under a favorable, and hence oftentimes false, light.) A good example of this is the media reporting of what happened in and around Fallujah, Iraq soon after the opening days of the invasion/occupation in 2003. Dahr Jamail has compiled good reports about the discrepancy between on the ground reality and reports that the media was being fed by military sources and subsequently presenting as truth in a regurgitated form.
So here's my decidedly imperfect letter:
December 11th, 2007[edit added Dec. 12:] Yes - the blockades were an attempt to hold the Bush Administration accountable for the wrongful making of war. They were, for me, an attempt to confine the military vehicles on port property until the commencement of a responsible, safe and complete withdrawal from Iraq.
To the Editor,
Certain prominent officials within the Bush Administration continue to perpetrate and to get away with a wrongful, aggressive and illegal war of occupation in Iraq. There are many factors which enable the Bush Administration's imperial aspirations; not least among them are the politics of fear and division, the leverage of a compliant Congress, and an apathetic Public.
But the Bush Administration may be most enabled in its pursuit of global dominance by a compliant and cooperative mainstream media. For example, embedded military reports are taken at face value with little to no question about the veracity of what are oftentimes virtually anonymous sources. In its compliance with the Bush Administration politics of fear and division, the mainstream media do the USA harm.
Iraq did not pose a threat to the USA prior to invasion.
Our nation's military and military personnel are being misused, and abused, in the service of an unjust and aggressive occupation.
The port blockades were an attempt to stop an unlawful occupation; one that is hurting the people of Iraq and the uniformed service personnel of the USA. To speak against the blockades is comparable to saying that a police officer should not drive in excess of the speed limit in order to apprehend a suspect.
Millions of people in Iraq suffer on a daily basis because of the war. Their suffering goes unreported or glossed over. Where are their voices in our media? Why don't we hear from those who are most impacted by this 'war?'
Thank you and sincerely,
Robert Whitlock
Olympia
The blockades were, for me, an attempt to serve the interests of justice by shutting down an intolerable and immoral crusade for control over the petroleum resource of Iraq, a crusade for geopolitical and economic dominance.
I think there is a valid argument to be made that the protests were legal because they were an attempt to hold an Executive Administration that has run riot with the military resources of the USA to account for its wrongdoing. Congress is delinquent. There is abundant evidence to reasonable conclude that prominent members of the Bush Administration have committed heinous and grievous wrongdoings in their respective quests for global dominance and personal power.
What if the Occupier Were to Come to this Land
What if it were you. What if, for example, a foreign country X decided that it was in its best interests to invade YOUR country. Let's use water as an example here. What if Country X was worried about running out of water. It's people were in danger, in the not so distant future, of not having sufficient water to live normally.
So Country X started to think about how important it is economically that mostly everyone have enough water to function normally. So they start to buy water from foreign countries. At first a little, then some more, then a lot. This goes on for some time, and most people are mostly happy. Country X starts to build a big military so that it can protect its water interests in the future, because it looks like there might not be enough for everyone in the world to have enough. And they want to make sure that they have access to enough for themselves.
At some point, Country X runs into some major water problems. There is fast approaching a point where there is just not enough supply to meet growing demands... And yuck, they even managed to contaminate large amounts of their own native supplies. Whoops. But damn, wasn't building that military a good idea. Because you know what, Country X is now able to go into other countries and take water without asking. In fact, this idea of using military conquest for resource control even has the potential to be lucrative for those who know how to work it.
What if this were to happen? What if it were to happen to you? What if you found soldiers from Country X in your city, hooking up hoses to your artesian well and shipping it back, perhaps even across an ocean to another continent. Hooking up to the water that you have always depended on for your quality of life in order to supply its own people with enough water so that they can function normally? Don't worry they say - they will start to pay you for the water once they hold elections and establish a new government.
This is what is happening in Iraq. The US is piping oil from Iraq to ships that then bring it to the USA.
I like the old adage that you get what you give.
I want the USA to be aware of how it wages wars for control over resources. Because it might come back to haunt "us" someday. Maybe there is a Country X somewhere out there, polluting its own water resources, watching its supplies struggle to keep up with demands in the face of a growing, and thirsty, population - and anticipating a time when it may be necessary to occupy other countries in order to ensure its own access to sufficient water supplies. Water, oil, air, land. Isn't it time that we figure out ways to use and share the resources of this planet responsibly so that aggressive wars of control over resources are not necessary in the first place?
There are other options besides fueling an addiction to easy petroleum. We need to explore those alternatives if we care about human rights and human dignity. There will be other options, in the future, besides waging wars over who gets access to the world's great water supplies. We can enable those options by speaking out against the great crime of our day - the aggressive crusade for control over oil in Iraq.
Water, unlike petroleum, is absolutely necessary to life on Earth. We need to learn how (if we care about the well-being of future generations) to share and use the Earth's resources responsibly before major wars over water erupt. Because it might just be us who wake up to occupiers in our own backyard.
So Country X started to think about how important it is economically that mostly everyone have enough water to function normally. So they start to buy water from foreign countries. At first a little, then some more, then a lot. This goes on for some time, and most people are mostly happy. Country X starts to build a big military so that it can protect its water interests in the future, because it looks like there might not be enough for everyone in the world to have enough. And they want to make sure that they have access to enough for themselves.
At some point, Country X runs into some major water problems. There is fast approaching a point where there is just not enough supply to meet growing demands... And yuck, they even managed to contaminate large amounts of their own native supplies. Whoops. But damn, wasn't building that military a good idea. Because you know what, Country X is now able to go into other countries and take water without asking. In fact, this idea of using military conquest for resource control even has the potential to be lucrative for those who know how to work it.
What if this were to happen? What if it were to happen to you? What if you found soldiers from Country X in your city, hooking up hoses to your artesian well and shipping it back, perhaps even across an ocean to another continent. Hooking up to the water that you have always depended on for your quality of life in order to supply its own people with enough water so that they can function normally? Don't worry they say - they will start to pay you for the water once they hold elections and establish a new government.
This is what is happening in Iraq. The US is piping oil from Iraq to ships that then bring it to the USA.
I like the old adage that you get what you give.
I want the USA to be aware of how it wages wars for control over resources. Because it might come back to haunt "us" someday. Maybe there is a Country X somewhere out there, polluting its own water resources, watching its supplies struggle to keep up with demands in the face of a growing, and thirsty, population - and anticipating a time when it may be necessary to occupy other countries in order to ensure its own access to sufficient water supplies. Water, oil, air, land. Isn't it time that we figure out ways to use and share the resources of this planet responsibly so that aggressive wars of control over resources are not necessary in the first place?
There are other options besides fueling an addiction to easy petroleum. We need to explore those alternatives if we care about human rights and human dignity. There will be other options, in the future, besides waging wars over who gets access to the world's great water supplies. We can enable those options by speaking out against the great crime of our day - the aggressive crusade for control over oil in Iraq.
Water, unlike petroleum, is absolutely necessary to life on Earth. We need to learn how (if we care about the well-being of future generations) to share and use the Earth's resources responsibly before major wars over water erupt. Because it might just be us who wake up to occupiers in our own backyard.
Port of Olympia Public Testimony
[edit: Let me preface this statement by saying that in no way do I think the employees and commissioners of the Port are intending to do the wrong thing (in regard to military shipments.) I think that the Port's goal of creating prosperity for the county is an honorable one. But there is a point when we, as human beings - and as citizens - have to make decisions about what is right and what is wrong. The unnecessary violence that has occurred, and continues unabated in Iraq, has been promulgated [edit: caused] by US actions. The ongoing presence of US forces is exacerbating, and it prolongs, the problem. (The violence won't stop immediately if the US pulls out rapidly - but it's not stopping now, while the US remains, either.)
It is time to stop this "war." By encouraging (and forcing via nonviolent civil disobedience if necessary) local institutions to comply with moral, humanitarian and legal imperatives, PMR (see below) will take an important step in creating a scenario that will promote the acceleration of an end to the US military presence in - and domination of - Iraq.]
Here is the text of a written comment I submitted a recent Port Commission meeting. I also summarized the comment in verbal testimony during the public comment period of the meeting.
Port Militarization Resistance (PMR) has recently adopted a campaign strategy to oppose the further use of the municipal Port of Olympia to enable the continuance of the illegal and immoral occupation of Iraq. More on that later.
Here's the comment:
It is time to stop this "war." By encouraging (and forcing via nonviolent civil disobedience if necessary) local institutions to comply with moral, humanitarian and legal imperatives, PMR (see below) will take an important step in creating a scenario that will promote the acceleration of an end to the US military presence in - and domination of - Iraq.]
Here is the text of a written comment I submitted a recent Port Commission meeting. I also summarized the comment in verbal testimony during the public comment period of the meeting.
Port Militarization Resistance (PMR) has recently adopted a campaign strategy to oppose the further use of the municipal Port of Olympia to enable the continuance of the illegal and immoral occupation of Iraq. More on that later.
Here's the comment:
Monday, January 22, 2007
Robert Whitlock
Resident of Thurston County
Port of Olympia Commission Meeting Testimony:
The Legality of US Actions in Iraq
vîs a vîs
The Shipment of Military Cargoes Through the Port
In light of the illegality of the ongoing occupation of Iraq by US military forces, I request and urge the Commissioners of the Port of Olympia to adopt an official policy relating to the shipment of military goods through the Port of Olympia. By allowing further military cargoes, the Port is aiding, abetting and enabling the Occupation – thereby subjecting itself to legal vulnerabilities. The Port, in good conscience, must stop allowing cargoes destined to further the occupation of Iraq.
Therefore, I hereby renounce my own support for the allowance of military cargoes destined to support the illegal occupation of Iraq through the Municipal Port of Olympia. Further, as a resident of Thurston County, I request legal and moral asylum from any ongoing participation, by the Port, in the Occupation. I hereby formally revoke assent so as to absolve myself from complicity in the County’s support for the illegal military actions.
But it is not enough to politically revoke my complicity or formally request legal asylum. It is my duty as a citizen to actively oppose the illegal actions of my government. In so doing, I will present evidence to convince the Commission of the basis for my legal understanding of the US presence in Iraq.
Here’s a brief outline of some legal issues relating to the actions of the US in Iraq:All of this information is public. I hope this list makes it clear that there is a firm legal basis for my assertion that the war is, indeed, illegal. I request that the Port develop a clear policy relating to any possible future military cargoes destined to Iraq. I ask that the Port deny any further cargoes that are designed to further the occupation of Iraq. Please, do not hesitate to ask me if you have any further questions or to request more information.
- Article VI of the Constitution (USA) says:
“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; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.”- The Principles of Nuremberg were adopted by the United Nations International Law Commission, in 1950. We have seen the Bush Administration’s prewar intelligence for what it is – a fraud. It is clear that there was no legitimate military motive for launching the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq; therefore the war can only be viewed as a war of choice – a war of aggression. The Principles of Nuremberg are enlightening in regard to the invasion and occupation (and conduct thereof) of Iraq:
Principle Vl
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
a. Crimes against peace:
i. Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
ii. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i). [emphasis added]
b. War crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or illtreatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
c. Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.
Principle VII
Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principles VI is a crime under international law. [emphasis added]- Former Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, said the unilateral invasion of Iraq violated internationally recognized legal agreements. Annan said that the USA’s actions in Iraq violated the UN Charter, which requires Security Council approval before the invasion of a sovereign nation.
Thank you.
[signed]
Robert Whitlock
More Photos from Watada Rally
Link to more pictures of Monday's rally: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rwhitlock/sets/72157594523285250/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)