Monday, September 27, 2010

Is That Lawful?

I got a chuckle at this one. Carl Herman, a 9-11 nutbar who bills himself as the LA County Non-Partisan Examiner, wrote a series of posts on his attempts to convince people at a "conservative 9-11 event" that US wars are unlawful.

Consistent with my last two years of writing articles to explain, document, and prove current US wars aren’t even close to lawful and all based on lies, nobody at this event of mostly current and former US military could defend current US wars as lawful, even in subsequent e-mails and in their consultation with the group’s “Constitutionalist.” I challenge anyone to explain, document, and prove in the comments section below that US war in Afghanistan, Iraq, and/or Iran is legal (you can put what you say in more than one comment). I will likely demand anyone making such argument to refute my longer explanation of US war law that I will reference in my comment responses from my article, “Open proposal to US higher education.”


Okay, so I'm not really interested in debating whether the US wars in Afghanistan are lawful or not because a) I'm not a lawyer, and b) it's kind of like the debate over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

But I did have to laugh at this part of an email to Tom, one of the "conservatives" that Carl encountered:
I agree with you, Tom, that we should not depend on our government or police, but be prepared to defend our families and ourselves. And yes, legal self-defense allows one to shoot-to-kill if under imminent threat of lethal attack. Believe me, my wife, my daughter, and I would disable or kill anyone instantly who was even a credible threat to our dog.

I am going to go out on a limb, here, Carl, and say that it is not lawful to kill anyone instantly who is even a credible threat to your dog. I mean, seeing as how you're so concerned with lawful actions and all.

201 Comments:

At 27 September, 2010 16:04, Blogger Billman said...

You see? Once again, proof that Troofers believe and accept that murder is "ok" for Troofers to commit, whenever and however they feel like it...

I suppose we'e due for another mass shooting with the headline "Shooter was a 9/11 Conspiracy Theorist."

 
At 27 September, 2010 17:05, Blogger Carl Herman said...

Hello Pat and Billman,
Pat, are you saying that you understand lawful self-defense but can't or won't understand lawful war? Gee, that's civic responsibility at it's highest! Your response is to click your heals and trust government rather than understand one law?

And you both would rather some punk kill your family pets in front of you rather than apply most expeditious force to save them? Wow, try explaining that to your friends and family. These examples have variables, but you argue for your pets' death in any case. Good for you. Try that out and see how proud you are. What, you're afraid under all circumstances to take that case to a jury?

Besides, you two, you ignore the "emperor has no clothes" issue: unlawful war that kills American soldiers that you act too dumb to understand.

 
At 27 September, 2010 18:30, Blogger Billman said...

Yes, because that was the point we were trying to make...

When you're done being self-righteous with your half-assed assumptions, and you haved learned to understand satire, over-exageration, and sarcasm, then you can come back in here and debate with the adults.

In the meanitme, why don't you attempt to understand the paradox of "lawful war," and explain to the class how any war.has ever been a "lawful" one, let alone a good thing for the one being waged war on...

 
At 27 September, 2010 18:55, Blogger Triterope said...

LA County Non-Partisan Examiner

Reminds me of the "Private Attorney General," Paul Andrew Mitchell.

 
At 27 September, 2010 19:52, Blogger Carl Herman said...

Triterope: and all you have is jokes in the face of our soldiers and families' service to American ideals and law?

Put-up or shut-up, funny boy. Same challenge to you as to Bill.

 
At 27 September, 2010 20:00, Blogger Carl Herman said...

Bill: You’re trying to make the point that telling US soldiers and families that discerning lawful from unlawful war is like, as Pat lyingly and irresponsibly asserts, is like, “the debate over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin”?

Really, Bill? You’d tell that to Conservatives, soldiers, and families, and expect not to get your ass kicked? You think educated Americans given the chance to understand the law in question tolerate such stupidity from Pat and you?

And you think satire and whatever else you distract yourself with is actually funny to the families of our 5,000 dead American soldiers from unlawful war? Try that out, Bill; go for it. Tell them how funny it is their son or daughter is dead from a lie-based unlawful War of Aggression.

Sure, smart-ass; let’s talk war law. There’s lawful and unlawful as basic definitions in law, and especially so for the life-and-death topic of war. We apply these simple ideas without paradox everyday to speed limits, buying something rather than stealing, and prevention of physical harm to others. Yes, in each instance, one can imagine special cases to “paradoxically” violate the law (your wife is giving birth and you speed, etc.).

In the case of current US wars, however, they aren’t even close to legal and exactly are the kind of wars legislated against after the final lesson of WW2 with Nazi invasion of Poland in “self-defense.” The legal concept of “just war” has been considered for thousands of years, but comes down today to the US-created treaty applied multilaterally through the UN: if it’s not within a narrow definition of “self-defense” then it’s an unlawful war of choice.

Now, so-pictured “super Bill,” take an educated stand on current US wars. My best explanation, documentation and “emperor has no clothes” conclusion is in my article, “Open proposal to US higher education.” Where do you stand, big mouth: the current US wars are unlawful for the obvious reasons I walk readers through in “Open proposal” or in the article Pat points to is one choice. As such, our soldiers and Americans who support the US Constitution rather than laugh at it, as you’ve done so far, are obligated by their Oath of Enlistment to refuse all unlawful orders, especially for unlawful war. Or do you say the wars are lawful? If so, defend your assertion, so-called adult. And you’d better be educated on the law, so-called American, and not parrot empty rhetoric of patriotism as all history’s fascists did.

Is sarcasm all you got in the face of 5,000 dead American soldiers and their families, Bill?

 
At 27 September, 2010 20:01, Blogger Carl Herman said...

1 of 2:
Bill: You’re trying to make the point that telling US soldiers and families that discerning lawful from unlawful war is like, as Pat lyingly and irresponsibly asserts, is like, “the debate over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin”?

Really, Bill? You’d tell that to Conservatives, soldiers, and families, and expect not to get your ass kicked? You think educated Americans given the chance to understand the law in question tolerate such stupidity from Pat and you?

And you think satire and whatever else you distract yourself with is actually funny to the families of our 5,000 dead American soldiers from unlawful war? Try that out, Bill; go for it. Tell them how funny it is their son or daughter is dead from a lie-based unlawful War of Aggression.

Sure, smart-ass; let’s talk war law. There’s lawful and unlawful as basic definitions in law, and especially so for the life-and-death topic of war. We apply these simple ideas without paradox everyday to speed limits, buying something rather than stealing, and prevention of physical harm to others. Yes, in each instance, one can imagine special cases to “paradoxically” violate the law (your wife is giving birth and you speed, etc.).

 
At 27 September, 2010 20:01, Blogger Carl Herman said...

2 of 2:
In the case of current US wars, however, they aren’t even close to legal and exactly are the kind of wars legislated against after the final lesson of WW2 with Nazi invasion of Poland in “self-defense.” The legal concept of “just war” has been considered for thousands of years, but comes down today to the US-created treaty applied multilaterally through the UN: if it’s not within a narrow definition of “self-defense” then it’s an unlawful war of choice.

Now, so-pictured “super Bill,” take an educated stand on current US wars. My best explanation, documentation and “emperor has no clothes” conclusion is in my article, “Open proposal to US higher education.” Where do you stand, big mouth: the current US wars are unlawful for the obvious reasons I walk readers through in “Open proposal” or in the article Pat points to is one choice. As such, our soldiers and Americans who support the US Constitution rather than laugh at it, as you’ve done so far, are obligated by their Oath of Enlistment to refuse all unlawful orders, especially for unlawful war. Or do you say the wars are lawful? If so, defend your assertion, so-called adult. And you’d better be educated on the law, so-called American, and not parrot empty rhetoric of patriotism as all history’s fascists did.

Is sarcasm all you got in the face of 5,000 dead American soldiers and their families, Bill?

 
At 27 September, 2010 21:20, Blogger Pat said...

Carl, you obviously know about as much about lawful self-defense as you do about lawful war, which is to say not much.

 
At 28 September, 2010 04:52, Blogger Triterope said...

Triterope: and all you have is jokes

That wasn't a joke, you idiot.

 
At 28 September, 2010 06:16, Blogger Carl Herman said...

Pat:
Oh, I apologize; you do have more than Bill’s “humor”: denial and ad hominem.

Explain lawful war, Pat. Go ahead. My best shot as a teacher of government and history is in two places: “Open proposal to US higher education” for context and expert testimony, and “US war laws explained” for the specific walk through of THE ONE MOST IMPORTANT US LAW.

Explain lawful war, but you’d better know what you’re talking about.

So far, both of you have chosen to insult and take on someone in the area of the person’s academic training and professional expertise. The topic is the protection of American soldiers and their families from unlawful war.

So far all you have is sarcasm, denial, and attack of the messenger.

So far, that’s as high as you go for responsible citizenry.

Explain war law to us, Pat. We’re listening.

 
At 28 September, 2010 06:16, Blogger Carl Herman said...

Triterope:
You're afraid to take on the challenge I gave to Bill. You don’t understand the one law to protect our soldiers from unlawful war. Prove me wrong.

And you’re the literal idiot. The word is Greek, and so powerful it’s remained in our language untranslated for over 2,000 years. It’s meaning includes how Greeks would insult those who failed to address the democracy’s most important issues, like war.

So far, you’re the idiot. You’re afraid to address and admit unlawful war, or ignorant and afraid to learn.

That’s you in the face of 5,000 dead American soldiers and their families. Take a long look in that mirror, Scrooge, and consider your future.

 
At 28 September, 2010 06:42, Blogger Billman said...

Heh, Carl, maybe I should mention I served for 4 years during the war on terror... so, now what? Do I kick my own ass?

 
At 28 September, 2010 07:01, Blogger "Broom Jockey" Willie Fan said...

Carl, you are a lunatic. That is all.

 
At 28 September, 2010 07:10, Blogger BG said...

Carl,

Pat and James maintain this blog with the purpose of avoiding the hard truth.

The posts on sometimes interesting; certainly the coverage has been wide-ranging.

However, the comment section is generally populated by authors who simply can't allow the truth of 9/11 and illegal wars to sink in.

 
At 28 September, 2010 07:11, Blogger "Broom Jockey" William Rodriguez Fan said...

testing 1..2...3..

 
At 28 September, 2010 07:13, Blogger Billman said...

And where did I ever use an ad-hominem when talking to you, Carl? I don't recall ever calling you anything. Sorry but, I'm not resorting to that level. Though I see that you have repeatedly...

Look, all sarcasm, self righteous butthurt, and ad-hominems aside.. my father, brother-in-law, and one of my best friends still in the Navy are all troofers and against the war. None of them display the self-righteous butthurt you do whenever we discuss wether 9/11 was an inside job, or wether the Iraq war is "unlawful."

I've also served with friends who have died in the war on terror. Like my troofer friend who's still serving, they all did their duty wether they agree with the politics or not. And I've been asking YOU, is what difference does it make wether the war was lawful or unlawful? They're still dead.

Am I supposed to be like "It's ok that you died, Jeremy. This war was lawful." Or vice versa in an unlawful war? People still die. Arguing about the semantics isn't going to change that. War sucks. People die. And we all know this when we sign up. Doesn't mean anyone is ok with it.

Just what point are you trying to make? That you're super awesome because you call everyone here on this internet forum ignorant for not sharing you views? And you seem to think doing that honors the people who have died and are still fighting in this war?

So is there an "Internet Trolls of 9/11 Truth" movement, or something? Why don't you sign up and join the marines and army and navy and air force people out there instead of making wild assumptions about anonymous people on some random internet forum.

Seriously, all of this over "unlawful" or "lawful" and you're totally missing the point about how you troofers condone violence when it suits your interests...

 
At 28 September, 2010 07:13, Blogger "Broom Jockey" William Rodriguez Fan said...

What truth about 9/11 you insane freakshow.

The fake phoned calls to loved ones?

The missle at the Pentagon in the broad freakin daylight?

The mini bombs on the base of the lightpoles near the Pentagon?

The empty drone aircrafts that hit the towers?

Which twoof are you referring to?

 
At 28 September, 2010 07:41, Blogger Billman said...

Richard Gage says that all wars have been started under false flag attacks. So that also means, Veitnam, Korea, World War II.. all inside jobs.

So where were you crying about the family members then, Carl? What makes Iraq and Afghanistan that catalyst for your butthurt? Why should we ignore the other wars?

You mention 5000 AMERICAN dead, but make no effort to mention the Iraqi family members... the other side loses people too, but apparently that means nothing to you. I feel bad for the people in Iran, they desperately want freedom from their regime, but many of them will probably die whenever Isreal or the U.S. attacks them. Some of my friends will probably be the ones killing them. And here you'll be, bitching at us on wether its lawful or not.

30,000,000 people died worldwide (not JUST American) in WWII. And that's the LOWEST estimate. Yet you make no effort to mention them. After all, Richard Gage says World War II and all other wars were started under 9/11 inside jobby job style false flags.

But we should only focus on what YOU think is wrong, I guess. We wouldn't want to be ignorant.

 
At 28 September, 2010 08:03, Blogger Billman said...

The point, Carl, is that you're saying its perfectly acceptable to murder anyone who so much as threatens your dog (or any smiliar action to which super violent force is deemed neccessary by you and other troofers)... even though the law says that's not really ok...

But somehow, disagreeing with that statement and making a joke point out the irony of it (being that troofers condone murder, yet abhor war, and that's what my ogirinal comment at the top of this page was referring to) means I'm spitting in the face of 5000 american families, etc.. etc... leading you to all these other assumptions...

Wow, that's a pretty big leap there.

 
At 28 September, 2010 08:49, Blogger Pat said...

Carl, how about if you explain lawful self-defense to us. I'm curious as to the case history that says that you can kill someone who's a credible threat to your dog.

 
At 28 September, 2010 12:19, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I'm not a legal scholar; as a result, I'll refrain from comment on this particular issue.

I did, however, find the following document titled, Lawful and Unlawful Wars--Rules of War, in Free Dictionary's legal section.

 
At 28 September, 2010 12:38, Blogger Carl Herman said...

I'll have more to say later. For now, Guitar Bill's article misses that the US legal victory from two world wars was their created treaty, the UN Charter, that specifically addresses in crystal-clear letter and intent to restrict nations' use of force. My article on "US war laws explained" walks people through, but the UN Charter only takes an hour to read.

 
At 28 September, 2010 14:21, Blogger Carl Herman said...

Billman:
First and quickly to get to the point of unlawful US wars: you begin your first comment by linking the messenger to a category of people you insult. That’s attacking the messenger rather than addressing the message. You then strawman the argument by putting me into a category to “accept murder…whenever and however they feel like it.” And that’s just in your first paragraph of response.

The issue is lawful and unlawful current US wars.

Let’s look at the history of the conversation. You asked me to explain lawful war; I answered. Then I gave you the following challenge at the heart of the issue that so far you’ve avoided. I repeat:
Now, so-pictured “super Bill,” take an educated stand on current US wars. My best explanation, documentation and “emperor has no clothes” conclusion is in my article, “Open proposal to US higher education.” Where do you stand, big mouth: the current US wars are unlawful for the obvious reasons I walk readers through in “Open proposal” or in the article Pat points to is one choice. As such, our soldiers and Americans who support the US Constitution rather than laugh at it, as you’ve done so far, are obligated by their Oath of Enlistment to refuse all unlawful orders, especially for unlawful war. Or do you say the wars are lawful? If so, defend your assertion, so-called adult. And you’d better be educated on the law, so-called American, and not parrot empty rhetoric of patriotism as all history’s fascists did.

Here’s how adults work in law: if you can’t refute the case for unlawful war, then my argument stands. Your options:
1. Surrender the point by failing to address the law. That means the response of soldiers is to refuse orders pertaining to an unlawful war in honor of their Oath of Enlistment to protect and defend the US Constitution, and to refuse all unlawful orders.
2. Try to tell us you’re either too stupid or too irresponsible to understand one law when a teacher walks you through it. The meaning of war law has been conservative and uncontroversial for 65 years; it’s just ignored like the 14th Amendment was ignored for equal protection under the law for ~100 years.
3. Declare yourself a fascist who prefers to obey leaders from their dictates rather than an American for limited government under the law (that’s your answer so far, Bill, to “do your duty” to just follow orders without any responsibility to understand your Oath of Enlistment to refuse unlawful orders, chief among them, an unlawful war).

I addressed your challenge. Now you address mine rather than change the topic.

 
At 28 September, 2010 14:24, Blogger Carl Herman said...

Billman:
1 of 2:
First and quickly to get to the point of unlawful US wars: you begin your first comment by linking the messenger to a category of people you insult. That’s attacking the messenger rather than addressing the message. You then strawman the argument by putting me into a category to “accept murder…whenever and however they feel like it.” And that’s just in your first paragraph of response.

The issue is lawful and unlawful current US wars.

Let’s look at the history of the conversation. You asked me to explain lawful war; I answered. Then I gave you the following challenge at the heart of the issue that so far you’ve avoided.

I repeat:

Now, so-pictured “super Bill,” take an educated stand on current US wars. My best explanation, documentation and “emperor has no clothes” conclusion is in my article, “Open proposal to US higher education.” Where do you stand, big mouth: the current US wars are unlawful for the obvious reasons I walk readers through in “Open proposal” or in the article Pat points to is one choice. As such, our soldiers and Americans who support the US Constitution rather than laugh at it, as you’ve done so far, are obligated by their Oath of Enlistment to refuse all unlawful orders, especially for unlawful war. Or do you say the wars are lawful? If so, defend your assertion, so-called adult. And you’d better be educated on the law, so-called American, and not parrot empty rhetoric of patriotism as all history’s fascists did.

 
At 28 September, 2010 14:26, Blogger Carl Herman said...

2 of 2:
Here’s how adults work in law: if you can’t refute the case for unlawful war, then my argument stands. Your options:

1. Surrender the point by failing to address the law. That means the response of soldiers is to refuse orders pertaining to an unlawful war in honor of their Oath of Enlistment to protect and defend the US Constitution, and to refuse all unlawful orders.

2. Try to tell us you’re either too stupid or too irresponsible to understand one law when a teacher walks you through it. The meaning of war law has been conservative and uncontroversial for 65 years; it’s just ignored like the 14th Amendment was ignored for equal protection under the law for ~100 years.

3. Declare yourself a fascist who prefers to obey leaders from their dictates rather than an American for limited government under the law (that’s your answer so far, Bill, to “do your duty” to just follow orders without any responsibility to understand your Oath of Enlistment to refuse unlawful orders, chief among them, an unlawful war).

I addressed your challenge. Now you address mine rather than change the topic.

 
At 28 September, 2010 14:27, Blogger Carl Herman said...

Pat:
Same challenge to you. You wrote that I don’t know much about lawful war and am a “nutbar.” I responded with the challenge to read my explanation and then you give us yours.

You do that, citizen. For you:
Your options:

1. Surrender the point by failing to address the law. That means the response of soldiers is to refuse orders pertaining to an unlawful war in honor of their Oath of Enlistment to protect and defend the US Constitution, and to refuse all unlawful orders.

2. Try to tell us you’re either too stupid or too irresponsible to understand one law when a teacher walks you through it. The meaning of war law has been conservative and uncontroversial for 65 years; it’s just ignored like the 14th Amendment was ignored for equal protection under the law for ~100 years.

3. Declare yourself a fascist who prefers to obey leaders from their dictates rather than an American for limited government under the law (that’s your answer so far, Bill, to “do your duty” to just follow orders without any responsibility to understand your Oath of Enlistment to refuse unlawful orders, chief among them, an unlawful war).

Address this, then I’ll talk about how the law applies to defending the life of a family pet.

 
At 28 September, 2010 14:36, Blogger Billman said...

Here Carl, why don't you look this up:

Legality of the Iraq War

I have no opinion either way, but I found these two passages especially relevant:

The political leaders of the US and UK have argued the war was legal, while many legal experts and other international leaders have argued that it was illegal.

Which, there is no surprise there....

US and UK officials have argued that existing UN Security Council resolutions related to the first Gulf War and the subsequent ceasefire, and to later inspections of Iraqi weapons programs, had already authorized the invasion. Critics of the invasion have challenged both of these assertions, arguing that an additional Security Council resolution, which the US and UK failed to obtain, would have been necessary to specifically authorize the invasion.

And:

The UN Security Council, as outlined in Article 39 of the UN Charter, has the ability to rule on the legality of the war, but has yet not been asked by any UN member nation to do so. The United States and the United Kingdom have veto power in the Security Council, so action by the Security Council is highly improbable even if the issue were to be raised.

So what I take from that, is the war not illegal at this moment, because no UN Member Nation has chosen to actually press the issue.

We've all heard a bunch of debating on the issue, but to say that "THE WAR IS ILLEGAL!" is actually technically false, and just your opinion, which you are welcome to have.

Now, is the war a "dick move" on the part of the U.S.? Probably. But again, that's just opinion.

Until a Member nation actually presses the UN to run an investigation, which then determines that the U.S. has illegally started the war, then you can't honestly say that it is, outside of your opinion of course, because at this moment it is not.

However, even if the UN decides to press the issue, the U.S. and the UK both have VETO power, which means that they can overrule that verdict.

Politics...

Basically, this is a never-ending debate.

The U.S. will probably never be held accountable for Iraq, wether anyone thinks it was wrong or not. And it doesn't look like anyone will ever press the issue, because at least two member nations with VETO power will override it anyway.

Now, I know what you're probably thinking, "If somebody murders your pet in front of you, and you don't press charges, does that still mean it wasn't wrong?"

And I would say no, it was still wrong.

So, it's not really "spitting in the face of 5000 American families" when I say that my world view doesn't include using those same families as emotional propaganda to justify calling people an "ignorant fag (generic ad-hominem attack example)" on the internet, as you seem fit to do so.

 
At 28 September, 2010 14:49, Blogger Billman said...

Billman:
First and quickly to get to the point of unlawful US wars: you begin your first comment by linking the messenger to a category of people you insult.


Who have I insulted in this thread? Please point out whatever it is you are taking as an insult or "ad-hominem" attack. So far, in exchanges between you and me, the only person who has resorted to insults is you.

That’s attacking the messenger rather than addressing the message.

Again, who have I attacked?

You then strawman the argument by putting me into a category to “accept murder…whenever and however they feel like it.” And that’s just in your first paragraph of response.

It's meant to be a strawman, ignore it if you feel that way. But you are saying it's ok to kill someone who threatens your dog. You're not saying it's ok to interfere, or try to stop the person, you're saying it's OK TO KILL. How is that not saying it's ok to MURDER as long as it suits your interests? This is a common truther mindset:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35716821/

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-politics-in-national/holocaust-museum-shooter-von-brunn-a-9-11-truther-who-hated-neo-cons-bush-mccain

As well as Sean Fitzgerald...

The issue is lawful and unlawful current US wars.

That's the goalpost you changed it to. I was referring from the beginning to the above examples of truthers being ok with murder, a sarcastic yet personal opinion of mine which ironically, you continue to reinforce blatantly.

IF that is not what you endorse, make it clear. Stop changing the goalpost.

I made a joke about "all troofers being murderers eventually" and you got butthurt about it.

Your right to do so. But honestly, it's not something I truly believe. I do feel there is a ridiculous regularity to shootings associated with 9/11 truthers, as I have linked above, but even though I was trolling earlier, I don't think ALL truthers will end up that way, because then I'm saying my dad, my brother in law, and my friend will end up that way. I don't think they will.. they could but I know them personally, and I don't think they ever will. And I'll give other troofers I don't know the benefit of the doubt that most of them won't either.

But I will come on here to be a troll and say otherwise. If that bothers you, then try starting off a debate with "Hey, let's be serious" instead of "ZOMG! YOU SUPPORT ILLEGAL WARS AND WOULD ALLOW YOUR PETS TO BE MURDERED!!"

Holy shit, for real?

 
At 28 September, 2010 14:58, Blogger Billman said...

Let’s look at the history of the conversation. You asked me to explain lawful war; I answered.

Where? When? When you said THIS?:

In the case of current US wars, however, they aren’t even close to legal your opinion that you didn't provide any source to corraborate and exactly are the kind of wars legislated against after the final lesson of WW2 with Nazi invasion of Poland in “self-defense.” The legal concept of “just war” has been considered for thousands of years, but comes down today to the US-created treaty applied multilaterally through the UN: if it’s not within a narrow definition of “self-defense” then it’s an unlawful war of choice.

Which no nation has yet pressed the issue on. I have no opinion on the legality of the war either way, and you just automatically assumed I'm for it from the beginning by association I guess. I've just been pointing out that "lawful war" is a ridiculous paradoxical term. People do thier duty, fight these wars, and die, regardless of lawful or not.

Then I gave you the following challenge at the heart of the issue that so far you’ve avoided.

I'm addressing whatever you're going to say now.. sorry. I was at work.

I repeat:
Now, so-pictured “super Bill,” take an educated stand on current US wars.


Ok, but what does this have to do with my comment that all troofers end up being murderers? That's what I said at the beginning, and now you're leading us down this whole "legality of US wars" issue..

My best explanation, documentation and “emperor has no clothes” conclusion is in my article, “Open proposal to US higher education.”

Ok, well, give me more than a few SECONDS, and I will read it, if that's what you want.

Where do you stand, big mouth:

Heh, thanks for the ad-hom. Have you found where I have "insulted" and "ad-hom attacked" you yet?

the current US wars are unlawful for the obvious reasons I walk readers through in “Open proposal”

I.e. YOUR OPINION ON THEM.

or in the article Pat points to is one choice. As such, our soldiers and Americans who support the US Constitution rather than laugh at it, as you’ve done so far, are obligated by their Oath of Enlistment to refuse all unlawful orders, especially for unlawful war.

Which, it still hasn't been declared "unlawful" yet. If it ever IS, then I will agree with you.

Or do you say the wars are lawful? If so, defend your assertion, so-called adult. And you’d better be educated on the law, so-called American, and not parrot empty rhetoric of patriotism as all history’s fascists did.

Blah blah blah, I'm a fascist now? You've been making assumption after assumption this whole time.

 
At 28 September, 2010 15:07, Blogger Billman said...

Here’s how adults work in law: if you can’t refute the case for unlawful war,

I think I already have..

then my argument stands. Your options:
1. Surrender the point by failing to address the law. That means the response of soldiers is to refuse orders pertaining to an unlawful war in honor of their Oath of Enlistment to protect and defend the US Constitution, and to refuse all unlawful orders.


Which, to do so RIGHT NOW in regards to the Iraq war, which has yet to be declared unlawful is basically saying "Try me under the UCMJ!" akin to treason. You're demanding that all U.S. Soilders be treasonous because of YOUR OPINON that you share with others? There's no actual ruling that has declared iraq to be illegal yet. So this cannot apply.

2. Try to tell us you’re either too stupid or too irresponsible to understand one law when a teacher walks you through it.

When one actually does, let me know.

The meaning of war law has been conservative and uncontroversial for 65 years; it’s just ignored like the 14th Amendment was ignored for equal protection under the law for ~100 years.

Opinion, opinion.

3. Declare yourself a fascist who prefers to obey leaders from their dictates rather than an American for limited government under the law (that’s your answer so far, Bill, to “do your duty” to just follow orders without any responsibility

That's not my "answer" that's the reality of serving in the United States Military. You get punished for not doing so.

to understand your Oath of Enlistment to refuse unlawful orders, chief among them, an unlawful war).

When it's actually been declared "unlawful" then your statement applies. Sorry, but mine and your opinions do not count. And the entire military isn't going to rise up and stage a coup just because you or anyone else has a gut feeling this war is a bad thing, and that is basically what you're suggesting.

I addressed your challenge. Now you address mine rather than change the topic.

I haven't been changing the topic. Just going along with your ever changing goalposts. Have I addressed this to your satisfaction? Or do you want to continue to call me a fascist?

I don't really have an opinion on the war as of yet. I do have a problem with people coming in here using the dead soldiers, some of whom I actually knew, as emotional propaganda to feel all self-righteous about themselves and to call people ignorant for not believing in a conspiracy, which is what you are doing.

 
At 28 September, 2010 15:12, Blogger Billman said...

Here’s how adults work in law: if you can’t refute the case for unlawful war,

I think I already have..

then my argument stands. Your options:
1. Surrender the point by failing to address the law. That means the response of soldiers is to refuse orders pertaining to an unlawful war in honor of their Oath of Enlistment to protect and defend the US Constitution, and to refuse all unlawful orders.


Which, to do so RIGHT NOW in regards to the Iraq war, which has yet to be declared unlawful is basically saying "Try me under the UCMJ!" akin to treason. You're demanding that all U.S. Soilders be treasonous because of YOUR OPINON that you share with others? There's no actual ruling that has declared iraq to be illegal yet. So this cannot apply.

2. Try to tell us you’re either too stupid or too irresponsible to understand one law when a teacher walks you through it.

When one actually does, let me know.

The meaning of war law has been conservative and uncontroversial for 65 years; it’s just ignored like the 14th Amendment was ignored for equal protection under the law for ~100 years.

Opinion, opinion.

3. Declare yourself a fascist who prefers to obey leaders from their dictates rather than an American for limited government under the law (that’s your answer so far, Bill, to “do your duty” to just follow orders without any responsibility

That's not my "answer" that's the reality of serving in the United States Military. You get punished for not doing so.

to understand your Oath of Enlistment to refuse unlawful orders, chief among them, an unlawful war).

When it's actually been declared "unlawful" then your statement applies. Sorry, but mine and your opinions do not count. And the entire military isn't going to rise up and stage a coup just because you or anyone else has a gut feeling this war is a bad thing, and that is basically what you're suggesting.

I addressed your challenge. Now you address mine rather than change the topic.

I haven't been changing the topic. Just going along with your ever changing goalposts. Have I addressed this to your satisfaction? Or do you want to continue to call me a fascist?

I don't really have an opinion on the war as of yet. I do have a problem with people coming in here using the dead soldiers, some of whom I actually knew, as emotional propaganda to feel all self-righteous about themselves and to call people ignorant for not believing in a conspiracy, which is what you are doing.

 
At 28 September, 2010 15:17, Blogger Billman said...

Here’s how adults work in law: if you can’t refute the case for unlawful war,

I think I already have..

then my argument stands. Your options:
1. Surrender the point by failing to address the law. That means the response of soldiers is to refuse orders pertaining to an unlawful war in honor of their Oath of Enlistment to protect and defend the US Constitution, and to refuse all unlawful orders.


Which, to do so RIGHT NOW in regards to the Iraq war, which has yet to be declared unlawful is basically saying "Try me under the UCMJ!" akin to treason. You're demanding that all U.S. Soilders be treasonous because of YOUR OPINON that you share with others? There's no actual ruling that has declared iraq to be illegal yet. So this cannot apply.

2. Try to tell us you’re either too stupid or too irresponsible to understand one law when a teacher walks you through it.

When one actually does, let me know.

The meaning of war law has been conservative and uncontroversial for 65 years; it’s just ignored like the 14th Amendment was ignored for equal protection under the law for ~100 years.

Opinion, opinion.

3. Declare yourself a fascist who prefers to obey leaders from their dictates rather than an American for limited government under the law (that’s your answer so far, Bill, to “do your duty” to just follow orders without any responsibility

That's not my "answer" that's the reality of serving in the United States Military. You get punished for not doing so.

to understand your Oath of Enlistment to refuse unlawful orders, chief among them, an unlawful war).

When it's actually been declared "unlawful" then your statement applies. Sorry, but mine and your opinions do not count. And the entire military isn't going to rise up and stage a coup just because you or anyone else has a gut feeling this war is a bad thing, and that is basically what you're suggesting.

I addressed your challenge. Now you address mine rather than change the topic.

I haven't been changing the topic. Just going along with your ever changing goalposts. Have I addressed this to your satisfaction? Or do you want to continue to call me a fascist?

I don't really have an opinion on the war as of yet. I do have a problem with people coming in here using the dead soldiers, some of whom I actually knew, as emotional propaganda to feel all self-righteous about themselves and to call people ignorant for not believing in a conspiracy, which is what you are doing.

 
At 28 September, 2010 15:18, Blogger Billman said...

Here’s how adults work in law: if you can’t refute the case for unlawful war,

I think I already have..

then my argument stands. Your options:
1. Surrender the point by failing to address the law. That means the response of soldiers is to refuse orders pertaining to an unlawful war in honor of their Oath of Enlistment to protect and defend the US Constitution, and to refuse all unlawful orders.


Which, to do so RIGHT NOW in regards to the Iraq war, which has yet to be declared unlawful is basically saying "Try me under the UCMJ!" akin to treason. You're demanding that all U.S. Soilders be treasonous because of YOUR OPINON that you share with others? There's no actual ruling that has declared iraq to be illegal yet. So this cannot apply.

2. Try to tell us you’re either too stupid or too irresponsible to understand one law when a teacher walks you through it.

When one actually does, let me know.

The meaning of war law has been conservative and uncontroversial for 65 years; it’s just ignored like the 14th Amendment was ignored for equal protection under the law for ~100 years.

Opinion, opinion.

 
At 28 September, 2010 15:18, Blogger Billman said...

3. Declare yourself a fascist who prefers to obey leaders from their dictates rather than an American for limited government under the law (that’s your answer so far, Bill, to “do your duty” to just follow orders without any responsibility

That's not my "answer" that's the reality of serving in the United States Military. You get punished for not doing so.

to understand your Oath of Enlistment to refuse unlawful orders, chief among them, an unlawful war).

When it's actually been declared "unlawful" then your statement applies. Sorry, but mine and your opinions do not count. And the entire military isn't going to rise up and stage a coup just because you or anyone else has a gut feeling this war is a bad thing, and that is basically what you're suggesting.

I addressed your challenge. Now you address mine rather than change the topic.

I haven't been changing the topic. Just going along with your ever changing goalposts. Have I addressed this to your satisfaction? Or do you want to continue to call me a fascist?

I don't really have an opinion on the war as of yet. I do have a problem with people coming in here using the dead soldiers, some of whom I actually knew, as emotional propaganda to feel all self-righteous about themselves and to call people ignorant for not believing in a conspiracy, which is what you are doing.

 
At 28 September, 2010 15:20, Blogger Billman said...

Pat and James, apparently there is a character limit to comments? I've been posting things, only for them to dissappear. Kind of frustrating, but hey, it just means I got to post things in small chunks. Sorry for the inconvienence.

 
At 28 September, 2010 16:00, Blogger Triterope said...

First and quickly to get to the point of unlawful US wars

You must be using the words "first", "quickly" and "point" in a way I'm not familiar with.

 
At 28 September, 2010 16:03, Blogger Triterope said...

Pat and James, apparently there is a character limit to comments?

Yes, I think it's 3000 characters.

 
At 28 September, 2010 17:03, Blogger Carl Herman said...

Bill:
1 of 2:
Yes, please do read my article to walk you through the law. Your evidence is "he said, she said," with the assumption the law is too difficult to understand.

On that, you're completely wrong and irresponsible to not read the law for yourself. I explain, document and prove what the law says. When you understand the law, then you tell me what it says. If you find a legal argument, explain it to us. If all you have is, "he said, she said" then all you have is hearsay. If you can understand the infield fly rule in baseball, you can understand war law.

Understanding laws take place among juries every day. You can do it. A ceasefire means just that. The US and UK would have to point to the language with that burden of proof. In this case, neither does so; they just baldly say, "pre-emptive self-defense," which is an admittance that their acts are unlawful under the meaning of the law now. They won’t point to the UNSC ceasefire language because it doesn’t exist.

 
At 28 September, 2010 17:03, Blogger Carl Herman said...

2 of 2:
Yes, nobody has challenged the US-led wars in the UN. That is the same as nobody challenging an umpire’s call in a game. It doesn’t mean the ump is completely wrong; it means exactly what it is: nobody has dare to take on the US with the challenge (maybe because they see what the US does with ignoring laws to prevent use of their military).

The challenge stands: read the articles, and explain how you see the wars are lawful if that’s what you see based on the law.

Right now, and with respect to your service and I’m sure good faith to live a decent life, you’re parroting empty rhetoric rather than directly addressing the law.

And yes, you have to break long comments into sections.

 
At 28 September, 2010 17:06, Blogger Carl Herman said...

Triterope, I repeat:
You're afraid to take on the challenge I gave to Bill. You don’t understand the one law to protect our soldiers from unlawful war. Prove me wrong.

And you’re the literal idiot. The word is Greek, and so powerful it’s remained in our language untranslated for over 2,000 years. It’s meaning includes how Greeks would insult those who failed to address the democracy’s most important issues, like war.

So far, you’re the idiot. You’re afraid to address and admit unlawful war, or ignorant and afraid to learn.

That’s you in the face of 5,000 dead American soldiers and their families. Take a long look in that mirror, Scrooge, and consider your future.

 
At 28 September, 2010 18:07, Blogger Billman said...

Well, Carl, let me ask you a couple of questions to help better form my opinion on this.

Who are we holding to the US to in determining legality?

The UN Council? Or the US and it's own Congress?

Does the fact that Saddam had actually used weapons of mass destruction in the past against the Kurds have any bearing on the "existing threat" part of Article 39?

Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

 
At 28 September, 2010 18:08, Blogger Billman said...

Also, there's this:

The UN General Assembly (UNGA) may ask that the International Court of Justice (ICJ)—"the principal judicial organ of the United Nations" (Article 92)—give either an 'advisory opinion' or 'judgement' on the legality of the war. Indeed, the UNGA asked the ICJ to give an 'advisory opinion' on "the legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel", by its resolution A/RES/ES-10/14,[6] as recently as 12 December 2003; despite opposition from permanent members of the Security Council. It achieved this by sitting in tenth 'emergency special session', under the framework of the 'Uniting for Peace' resolution. As "the principal judicial organ of the United Nations", any future ruling by the ICJ on the legality of the war would carry considerable weight.

Of particular note is this:
The ICJ had previously found against the US for its actions in Nicaragua, a finding the US refused to comply with.

So... let's say that the War is illegal? Then what? How do you punish the US when they can just ignore the findings anyway?

 
At 28 September, 2010 18:10, Blogger Billman said...

Notice, I'm not trolling, but actually trying to seriously have a rational discussion about this.

Haven't read your article yet, but I promised I would. So give me til tommorow. Heh.

To be continued then, I spose...

 
At 28 September, 2010 18:34, Blogger Triterope said...

Carl, please cite the law you believe makes this war illegal. I would like to know the name of the document, the section number, the article number, that sort of thing.

 
At 28 September, 2010 19:19, Blogger Carl Herman said...

Triterope, you first and then Bill:

1 of 3:
Sure (but if you’d read “Open proposal to US higher education” you’d know, or the specific legal walkthrough of “US war laws explained” – do an engine search with my name, Carl Herman). Here’s the short version with complete documentation in the articles:

The name of the law is the US-created treaty called the UN Charter. Many people are confused about the UN Charter; it’s only area of legal authority is regarding nations’ governments’ use of force. That’s it. That’s all the US wanted and all that was needed in response to two world wars. Everything else from the UN is advice for the consideration of each nation’s legislative body.

Triterope, go through “US war laws explained” for the section numbers and language. The summary of its crystal-clear letter and spirit is to allow national self-defense from any attack, but only war engaged upon other nations if attacked by another nation’s government.

In this case, the US attacked Afghanistan four weeks after 9/11 and after two UN resolutions whereby the UN Security Council (UNSC) took jurisdiction and ruled for international cooperation for factual discovery, arrest, and prosecution of the criminals who did the 9/11 attacks. The US violated these two UNSC resolutions in their attack; thus violating war law with a war of choice, an unlawful “War of Aggression.”

It gets worse...

 
At 28 September, 2010 19:19, Blogger Carl Herman said...

2 of 3:
There is no public evidence or even statements that the Afghan government had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks. Therefore, the US admits their government is not involved in that crime. There is no public evidence of any imminent attack coming from any source in Afghanistan. This means that the US is not making the case for “self-defense” under current law. The US-led attacks came four weeks after 9/11 and while law enforcement with jurisdiction had acted; this means the US use of force is called “retribution,” “retaliation,” or “revenge.”

What the US did, Triterope, is claim “self-defense” without explaining how their case fits under the law. The US used language of “pre-emptive self-defense” to unilaterally assert authority to claim “self-defense” was whatever the US said. This type of government based on what one says at any time, or dictates, is a dictatorship rather than constitutional government under the law.

Again, full documentation and longer walk-through are in the article.

For Iraq, UNSC had jurisdiction and had an active ceasefire in place. The US and UK never claimed legal ability to violate this ceasefire; the language didn’t allow it but some corporate media pundits made that argument anyway. What the UNSC did authorize was a weapons search, which was about a month away from completion. In the 5 months of inspections before the US attack, no chemical or biological weapons were found. Importantly, the October 2002 NIE of the US stated that all 16 US intelligence agencies all agreed that there was no imminent threat of attack from Iraq, the specific chemical and biological weapons they though Saddam would have (they said “probable” because they’re easy to hide) were incapable of killing many people in the US if used, Iraq had no delivery system, and that they saw zero chance of any attempt to use them because Saddam would understand such an attempt would be suicide.

 
At 28 September, 2010 19:20, Blogger Carl Herman said...

3 of 3:
This is a big deal. This means that US best evidence is all against the “reason” of self-defense, and again, UNSC had jurisdiction and were in action.

That took me ten minutes to explain; it’ll take you at least an hour to verify my claims by checking my article, but not much more than that.

This all means that the US has a reason for wars; it’s just not a lawful one. The difference is whether we want American government UNDER the law, or a dictatorship ABOVE the law when they want to break it.

For me, going back to the topic of my attending a 9/11 event with flyers explaining the above, my best support of US soldiers and their families is to explain the law. US political leaders of both parties want the wars, you may recognize that corporate media is very “cooperative” in key policy areas of power and money, so unless people who understand the law speak-up, US soldiers are being thrown into an unlawful invasion to kill and be killed.

 
At 28 September, 2010 19:46, Blogger Carl Herman said...

Bill:
1 of 3:
My response to Triterope and the articles will help. Regarding your questions:

1. Article 51 allows national self-defense and even war with other nations upon attack by another nation’s government. Except under that circumstance, the UN Security Council (UNSC) has jurisdiction when they take it for determining use of force by a nation’s government. The rules are fully documented and explained in my article. That should be enough to raise red flags for you that current US wars are unlawful; they are not authorized by UNSC and neither government of Iraq or Afghanistan attacked or were involved in the attack. UNSC expressly declared peaceful means for both countries that the US violated. That means the wars are of choice, or “Wars of Aggression,” or mass-murders.

2. The US led the creation of the US treaty of the UN Charter. We wanted nobody to have war authority unless under a narrow definition of self-defense. When the US president and 2/3 of the Senate agree to a treaty, it’s the law under Article 6 of the US Constitution. The only way out of that limitation is to withdraw from the UN Charter. But as I wrote to Triterope, people are confused about the UN: it’s only legal authority is to prevent unlawful wars of aggression with all other areas being advisory for each nation’s legislature. Apparently, US political leadership has felt “safer” blatantly violating the law that we created and lying about it than making the argument to withdraw from the legal victory that WW1 and WW2 soldiers and families sacrificed to win. So, Congress can take action for war, but only under the limits of their own treaty, the UN Charter.

 
At 28 September, 2010 19:47, Blogger Carl Herman said...

2 of 3:

3. Saddam’s use of chemical weapons (the US supplied the precursor agents in support of Iraq’s unlawful invasion of Iran that the US supported in blatant violation of the law) can be considered by UNSC as a security concern, yes. As stated to Triterope, the October 2002 NIE had all 16 US intelligence agencies evaluate Saddam as zero threat to US national security. Therefore, US best intelligence refutes any argument for “self-defense.” Nations often shed crocodile tears to demonize enemies while never mentioning their own violations, like using a cooperative Saddam to attack an uncooperative Iran.

4. Good question on the ICJ. The US signed onto the UN Charter (it was our idea) but not to ICJ. Therefore, the US is not bound to recognize their legal jurisdiction. If UNSC asks ICJ for a legal opinion, UNSC is welcome to use or reject it. But because the US has agreed to the UN, only what they say counts. So far, no nation has filed for UN opinion on the legality of current US wars. If it happened, UNSC would be blocked from action by a US veto as one of five permanent UNSC members (all with veto power). There is a remedy through the General Assembly. The bottom line is that similar to Nazi Germany, nobody could tell them they were wrong except through military defeat or internal change of policy.

 
At 28 September, 2010 19:50, Blogger Carl Herman said...

3 of 3:

5. Therefore, because the US is the world’s superpower, it looks like it’s up to Americans to declare the “emperor has no clothes” obvious that US wars are not even close to lawful. I don’t know how close we are to that status, but I do know this, Bill: when you invest an hour to understand the actual law, just as when you gaze directly upon the emperor, the conclusion is the shocking and obvious fact of nakedness pretending to have cover.

Thank you for agreeing to read the law for yourself, Bill and interested readers.

The facts do speak for themselves when you let them.

If you want to argue that the wars are lawful, go for it. But you’d better be able to accurately explain the legal justification UNDER the law.

If you find the wars unlawful, you'll be just like me: starting as a “good” American trusting and ignorant, then informed but unbelieving, then looking, then looking again from disbelief and shock, then outraged and vocal.

 
At 28 September, 2010 19:59, Blogger ConsDemo said...

What judicial body has ruled either the war in Iraq or Afghanistan illegal?

As such, our soldiers and Americans who support the US Constitution rather than laugh at it, as you’ve done so far, are obligated by their Oath of Enlistment to refuse all unlawful orders, especially for unlawful war.

Here is the current oath of enlistment

I, (NAME), 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 regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

It makes no reference to any UN treaties. It makes no reference to unlawful orders although it suggests that orders should conform to the US constitution. A finding that an order was illegal would have to be rendered by a US court and, as far as I know, none has found American military presence in Iraq or Afghanistan to be illegal.

Finally, while I'm not one those who claims international law is irrelevant, conservatives are the first to say it is inapplicable to the US, so I don't believe a true conservative would make such an argument.

 
At 28 September, 2010 20:15, Blogger Carl Herman said...

ConsDemo:
Please read the above comments and the US LAW itself (not international, although other nations have signed-on to also make this US-created law their own). Search the article, “US war laws explained” by Carl Herman.

And no, with all respect, Conservatives don’t wait for our mommy or daddy or dictator to tell us what is and is not wrong when it’s obvious.

It’s US law, again, ConsDem. You have to read it for yourself; the above is enough hand-holding for anyone.

I will say this more: if you attended a baseball game for the first time and didn’t understand the rules, someone could explain the “law” of the strikezone in a few moments. If the pitcher then threw a ball ten feet over everyone’s head, you would be completely comfortable in saying for yourself without an umpire’s opinion that the pitch was not even close to the strike zone. If such a pitch were called a strike, you’d probably be confused at first. You’d check to make sure your understanding of the law was correct. You’d ponder, but quickly conclude that the umpire is running a rigged game.

Read the law yourself, ConsDemo. Then, like Bill:

If you want to argue that the wars are lawful, go for it. But you’d better be able to accurately explain the legal justification UNDER the law.

If you find the wars unlawful, you'll be just like me: starting as a “good” American trusting and ignorant, then informed but unbelieving, then looking, then looking again from disbelief and shock, then outraged and vocal.

 
At 28 September, 2010 20:32, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Carl Herman:

You never answered this question.

What judicial body has ruled either the war in Iraq or Afghanistan illegal?

Since you've made it clear you think the wars are in violation of US law, I'll amend the question to ask which "US judicial body" has rendered such a verdict?

Absent a court's determination, you are only expressing an opinion. If someone were to accuse the internet poster using the moniker "Carl Herman" of being a child molester, absent a judicial verdict, it would be an opinion as well.

No offense, but your opinion is irrelevant. However, I'd would find a judicial ruling relevant, if you can provide one.

 
At 28 September, 2010 20:59, Blogger Carl Herman said...

ConsDemo:
Sure; then you answer my questions.

None. In order for a judicial body to rule, there has to be one with jurisdiction and a case filed for ruling. Since no nation has challenged the US within the UN, no judicial body has been asked to rule. Therefore, we don’t know a legal ruling because none has yet occurred. I don’t know the case law of who has filed domestically.

Even with a court’s ruling, that is just an opinion. We know from history that court rulings can be overturned. We also know that judicial rulings can be bought.

You argue that the individual is irrelevant; you argue for daddy government to tell us what we can see for ourselves. With all offense to your obvious denial of my previous comment (how completely rude and revealing of your propaganda intent), I repeat:

Read the law yourself, ConsDemo. Then, like Bill:

If you want to argue that the wars are lawful, go for it. But you’d better be able to accurately explain the legal justification UNDER the law.

If you find the wars unlawful, you'll be just like me: starting as a “good” American trusting and ignorant, then informed but unbelieving, then looking, then looking again from disbelief and shock, then outraged and vocal.

I’ll accept a “pass” from you if you want to argue that you’re too stupid to read and understand one law. I’ll also take, “I’m too irresponsible,” or, “Carl, I’m a fascist. I’m down with my leader telling me what everything means, especially with millions of lives in war.”

What I won’t accept is your obfuscation and avoidance.

Read the damn law, ConsDemo. I’ll answer you questions about the law, but read it.

If not, then you literally don’t know what you’re talking about and we all see it.

 
At 28 September, 2010 21:04, Blogger Carl Herman said...

ConsDemo:
1 of 2:
Sure; then you answer my questions.

None. In order for a judicial body to rule, there has to be one with jurisdiction and a case filed for ruling. Since no nation has challenged the US within the UN, no judicial body has been asked to rule. Therefore, we don’t know a legal ruling because none has yet occurred. I don’t know the case law of who has filed domestically.

Even with a court’s ruling, that is just an opinion. We know from history that court rulings can be overturned.

You argue that the individual is irrelevant; you argue for daddy government to tell us what we can see for ourselves. With all offense to your obvious denial of my previous comment (how completely rude and revealing of your propaganda intent), I repeat:

Read the law yourself, ConsDemo. Then, like Bill:

 
At 28 September, 2010 21:04, Blogger Carl Herman said...

2 of 2:
If you want to argue that the wars are lawful, go for it. But you’d better be able to accurately explain the legal justification UNDER the law.

If you find the wars unlawful, you'll be just like me: starting as a “good” American trusting and ignorant, then informed but unbelieving, then looking, then looking again from disbelief and shock, then outraged and vocal.

I’ll accept a “pass” from you if you want to argue that you’re too stupid to read and understand one law. I’ll also take, “I’m too irresponsible,” or, “Carl, I’m a fascist. I’m down with my leader telling me what everything means, especially with millions of lives in war.”

What I won’t accept is your obfuscation and avoidance.

Read the damn law, ConsDemo. I’ll answer you questions about the law, but read it.

If not, then you literally don’t know what you’re talking about and we all see it.

 
At 29 September, 2010 00:01, Blogger Pat said...

Carl, I note that you still have not presented the case law showing that it would be legal for you to kill someone who posed a credible threat to your dog. If you'd like to admit that you were wrong on that point, feel free.

 
At 29 September, 2010 02:34, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

You can't determine whether something is legal or illegal under U.S. law by reading the law.

And the U.N. Charter is trumped under U.S. law by the President's power to issue Executive Orders. The President may use these direct the use of military force as the President determines necessary. The current wars may be illegal from the perspective of some jurisdictions, but not under U.S. law.

Carl's comments read suspiciously close to those wackos who claim that "there is no law in the United States that taxes your wages because your wages are barter for the work you've done...". That is, somebody who reads a lot of black and white law but never learned to understand the U.S. legal system.

 
At 29 September, 2010 04:20, Blogger angrysoba said...

O/T:

David Aaronovitch was on Coast to Coast discussing his book on conspiracies which someone has uploaded to You Tube.

From around part 5 (?) or 6 onwards they start talking about 9/11 and then they go to the callers who are absolutely insane in a way that cannot be parodied.

The host and Aaronovitch discuss Building Seven a bit and they come up with the idea that it is a kind of repository of fantasies for Truthers akin to Area 51. The building apparently contained whatever the Truthers want it to contain and whatever its significance is reveals more about the individual Truther rather than the NWO plot.

The rest of it is mostly an analysis of what conspiracy theories are, how conspiracy theorists think and how and why they inevitably fail (in short because conspiracy theories are the dark fantasies of losers).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MH4cgusPfuU


(Oh dear, my word verification code is "molesti"!)

 
At 29 September, 2010 05:45, Blogger Carl Herman said...

Pat:
1 of 2:
I already did, but you didn’t understand the answer: it depends on variables. I’ll address this once, and then turn back to understanding US war law. Maybe you don’t have a family dog, or didn’t grow-up with one and don’t understand that those beings are loved by families and are considered part of one’s family. You and I can invent circumstances whereby you would see it reasonable to kill a person under those circumstances. For example, a man goes to three neighbors’ yards and mortally shoots their dogs. Your neighbor frantically phones you and says his dog is dead and what happened. You get your gun. You hear your dog barking. You open the front door and see a man carrying a handgun with blood splattered on his lower pants on your property approaching the gate to your back yard. Your dog is at the gate barking. You command, “Drop your weapon!” Man: “No, I’m killing your dog.” Now, if you want to argue that you’d let the guy kill your dog, fine. I’d shoot to drop the person to protect my dog and take my case to a jury of my peers if law enforcement chose to prosecute. And no, I won’t research case law on this for you. Your colleagues and you both strawman that argument and use it to distract from the point of lawful or unlawful US wars.

 
At 29 September, 2010 05:46, Blogger Carl Herman said...

2 of 2:
Now it’s your turn. I note you haven’t explained war law after insulting my explanation. To repeat one of the first comments I made to you that you’ve failed to address:

Explain lawful war, Pat. Go ahead. My best shot as a teacher of government and history is in two places: “Open proposal to US higher education” for context and expert testimony, and “US war laws explained” for the specific walk through of THE ONE MOST IMPORTANT US LAW.

Explain lawful war, but you’d better know what you’re talking about.

So far, both of you have chosen to insult and take on someone in the area of the person’s academic training and professional expertise. The topic is the protection of American soldiers and their families from unlawful war.

So far all you have is sarcasm, denial, and attack of the messenger.

So far, that’s as high as you go for responsible citizenry.

Explain war law to us, Pat. We’re listening.

 
At 29 September, 2010 05:47, Blogger Carl Herman said...

“Richard”:
You’re wrong. You’ve understood laws by reading them or hearing them thousands of times, from your mother, to sports laws, to driving laws.

Wrong again. The UN Charter is a US-created treaty. The US made it into the literal “Supreme law of the land” according to the US Constitution (Article 6) when the president signed and 2/3 of the Senate ratified. Almost all nations have done the same under their legislative processes. The authorization to use force by Congress is always worded that such use is always to be within US treaty law.

Read my article for the documentation. You argue out of ignorance and dictatorship of whatever the president dictates is “necessary.”

That’s not limited government under the law. That’s authoritarian government that’s lawless.

 
At 29 September, 2010 05:47, Blogger Carl Herman said...

Angrysoba:
Uh… try to stay focused on the topic, please.

 
At 29 September, 2010 05:49, Blogger Carl Herman said...

ConsDemo:
If you read “Open proposal to US higher education,” among the expert testimony to help anyone understand that you really do understand the law right in front of your eyes (like the analogy of being confident without an umpire that a pitch ten feet over the batter’s head is not close to a strike), please note that while there’s been no court case, all 27 UK Foreign Office (like our State Dept) advised their government that war with Iraq would be unlawful. Their detailed legal findings were not published at the time and only came public this year.

The US legal opinion is cited in my article, “US war laws explained” and is a terse statement that claims “self-defense” without further explanation.

Again, to keep our eye on the ball:
Read the law yourself, ConsDemo. Then, like Bill:

If you want to argue that the wars are lawful, go for it. But you’d better be able to accurately explain the legal justification UNDER the law.

If you find the wars unlawful, you'll be just like me: starting as a “good” American trusting and ignorant, then informed but unbelieving, then looking, then looking again from disbelief and shock, then outraged and vocal.

 
At 29 September, 2010 06:10, Blogger Steve Horgan said...

'all 27 UK Foreign Office (like our State Dept) advised their government that war with Iraq would be unlawful'

No they didn't. If the FO had declared the war unlawful then the UK would not have participated in it. In terms of international law the war was lawful. You can argue that it should not have been, but blanket assertions of illegality are either false or mere rhetoric.

Personally, I find it quite depressing that people feel entitled not only to their own opinions, but their own facts.

 
At 29 September, 2010 07:03, Blogger Carl Herman said...

Steve:
You pathetic liar. You didn't even read my article to check my documentation, or are you a war-mongering propagandist who hopes readers are too stupid to check for themselves?

In "Open proposal to US higher education" is the link to this specific article: "All 27 UK Foreign Affairs lawyers: Iraq war unlawful. Obama, politicians, US media: no response". The Chilcot Inquiry was in January, 2010.

Next, Steve, same challenge as the others have if you want to rise from your current liar status:

If you want to argue that the wars are lawful, go for it. But you’d better be able to accurately explain the legal justification UNDER the law.

If you find the wars unlawful, you'll be just like me: starting as a “good” American trusting and ignorant, then informed but unbelieving, then looking, then looking again from disbelief and shock, then outraged and vocal.

 
At 29 September, 2010 07:31, Blogger Ian G. said...

Hey Carl, can I get your opinion on the legality of using modified attack baboons in combat? Also, do you think it's legal to use thermite to destroy buildings?

thanks buddy.

 
At 29 September, 2010 07:44, Blogger Carl Herman said...

Ian:
Go tell your jokes to the American families who have children who died in combat from these unlawful wars.

Same challenge to you, punk and apparent fascist with no problem of dictatorial US wars: read, "Open proposal to US higher education" and...

If you want to argue that the wars are lawful, go for it. But you’d better be able to accurately explain the legal justification UNDER the law.

If you find the wars unlawful, you'll be just like me: starting as a “good” American trusting and ignorant, then informed but unbelieving, then looking, then looking again from disbelief and shock, then outraged and vocal.

 
At 29 September, 2010 08:35, Blogger Pat said...

Carl, your attempted appeal to emotion is noted. Your diversion from the question of whether it would be lawful to shoot someone who was a threat to your dog is also noted.

In fact, you would be guilty of murder even in the ridiculously contrived example you created. Dogs are not human beings and you cannot lawfully kill a human being in order to save them. That you are unwilling to admit this simple point shows that you are a typical crackpot.

 
At 29 September, 2010 08:41, Blogger GuitarBill said...

OT

angrysoba wrote, "...(Oh dear, my word verification code is "molesti"!)"

That's an interesting word verification code to say the least, angrysoba! After all, conspiracy theorists are prolific mind molesters.

%^)

 
At 29 September, 2010 08:46, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Pat wrote, "...Dogs are not human beings and you cannot lawfully kill a human being in order to save them. That you are unwilling to admit this simple point shows that you are a typical crackpot."

Yep, there's no doubt that the police and the courts would frown on the use of deadly force in the defense of a dog.

Does any sane person doubt that the outcome would be a long stay in a penitentiary?

 
At 29 September, 2010 09:18, Blogger Pat said...

What amuses me, Bill, is that his example of the dog undermines his central point about the war being unlawful. Suppose Bush were to admit that the Iraq war was unlawful, but defend his actions on the basis that Saddam was a clear threat, and that wasn't he justified in removing that threat, just as Carl would be in shooting someone who threatened his dog? Indeed, Bush could argue that Saddam was a threat to human beings, as he had already demonstrated in the gassing of the Kurds incident.

But no, Carl can't admit that he's wrong because cranks never admit they're wrong. I note in one of his articles someone pointed out his BS about how all owners of major US news stations are defense contractors. Does he admit that he exaggerated? No, he does not, because cranks never admit they're wrong. It's quite illuminating:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24593.htm

 
At 29 September, 2010 09:44, Blogger Philip said...

Carl you're a crackpot. You sure love to see your own words in type though don't you. Dumb jackass.

 
At 29 September, 2010 10:14, Blogger avicenne said...

A serial dog killer on the rampage, covered in the blood of his canine victims, who conveniently spouts some ludicrous exposition, because that's what serial dog killers tend to do, thus confirming that he is a credible threat. Oh, and the phone call from the frantic neighbour, just to really milk it.

Sounds about as likely as David Icke's "stunning analysis of what's behind US political/economic manipulative control."

http://www.examiner.com/la-county-nonpartisan-in-los-angeles/david-icke-stunning-analysis-of-what-s-behind-us-political-economic-manipulative-control

Here are some more interesting articles, "Beware of a false flag attack on the US to justify 'defensive' war with Iran", "Hitler's Big Lie Reborn", a couple more on a potential false flag attack, and I particularly like this one, "US wouldn't kill our own citizens, blame Iran, and start a war! Oh? FBI allowed '93 WTC bombing"

Where do you find the time to come here and insult people who don't share your hysterical 'Orwellian' worldview?

 
At 29 September, 2010 10:27, Blogger Carl Herman said...

Pat:
1 of 2:
Do you have a dog? You go ahead and let the person in our example murder your dog and explain that to your family. You live your life that way. In that example, I’d take my case to a jury of my peers. Now we’re ready to move to the issue of lawful and unlawful war.

Now, Pat, we first note that this is my third time to point out that YOU REFUSE TO EXPLAIN WAR LAW.

Why, Pat?

Are you afraid, think it’s too difficult to understand, too irresponsible to look it up, or are you in favor of authoritarian government unlimited by law and hoping your readers will not notice your failure to address this simple and fundamental law?

Answer, Pat, please. So far, we all notice you have not.

Now to your tangent to war law: if Bush wanted to make a case of imminent threat of attack, he’d have a burden of proof to justify armed attack to stop one. If you’d have read war law to understand it, you’d know this. As I’ve written a few times now, the US October 2002 NIE showed all 16 US intelligence agencies agreed that Saddam was not a threat.

Therefore, best evidence refutes that argument. In addition, the history of Saddam and the US is complex with crimes on both sides that anyone who reads “US war laws explained” will discover in the documentation.

 
At 29 September, 2010 10:28, Blogger Carl Herman said...

2 of 2:
Pat, now you devolve to a lie. You assert, “I note in one of his articles someone pointed out his BS about how all owners of major US news stations are defense contractors. Does he admit that he exaggerated? No, he does not, because cranks never admit they're wrong. It's quite illuminating”.

That article commenter, “wow,” was responding to an assertion of someone making a comment and not to anything in my article. You are the one, either intentionally or accidentally, promoting BS in this case, Pat. Anyone who looks will find that Pat’s citation doesn’t have the evidence he claims; it’s an abbreviated reprint of one of my articles. If Pat is making this claim, the burden of proof is on him to show the evidence. So far, the illuminating evidence he’s shown only shows that Pat is either mistaken or lying.

Back to your challenge, Pat, to explain war law:

If you want to argue that the wars are lawful, go for it. But you’d better be able to accurately explain the legal justification UNDER the law.

If you find the wars unlawful, you'll be just like me: starting as a “good” American trusting and ignorant, then informed but unbelieving, then looking, then looking again from disbelief and shock, then outraged and vocal.

 
At 29 September, 2010 10:35, Blogger Carl Herman said...

Phillip, avicenne and Readers:
Please note that nobody has yet addressed the topic to explain what lawful war is. All they have is ad hominem and distractions to link this important topic to dogs or other articles.

Avicenne: you have nothing to say about the topic already in motion with 70 comments so you try to change the subject? Same challenge to you in reading, “Open proposal to US higher education” to either agree that current US wars are unlawful or refute it:

If you want to argue that the wars are lawful, go for it. But you’d better be able to accurately explain the legal justification UNDER the law.

If you find the wars unlawful, you'll be just like me: starting as a “good” American trusting and ignorant, then informed but unbelieving, then looking, then looking again from disbelief and shock, then outraged and vocal.

 
At 29 September, 2010 10:49, Blogger Ian G. said...

Carl, could you stop throwing around words you don't understand (like "fascist") and answer my questions? Thanks pal.

 
At 29 September, 2010 10:50, Blogger Pat said...

Carl, once again you sidestep the issue of legality with regard to the dog and appeal to emotion instead. Bush can simply do the same thing as you suggest: "I’d take my case to a jury of my peers." And if no jury is ever convened, or if one finds Bush not guilty, I am quite certain that you will accept that the war was legal, eh?

I was wrong about you stating that the news stations are all owned by defense contractors; I do see that was a comment by one of your nutbar fans. See how easy it is for me to admit I was wrong? But you will never do so.

 
At 29 September, 2010 12:05, Blogger Carl Herman said...

Ian:
No.

You go tell your “jokes” to American families whose sons and daughters have been killed in unlawful war, “pal.”

 
At 29 September, 2010 12:07, Blogger Carl Herman said...

Pat:
1 of 2:
If you want to make a legal argument about dogs rather than the legal argument of unlawful wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the burden of proof is yours. You do the research in case law with citation and then explain its relevance to us. If you don’t know the application of law under the example I cited with case law to reasonably support your argument, then so far you literally have no case. Go ahead, invest your time there if this is important to you. I don’t know how law would apply in this area under case law, as I’ve already told you. I would make the choice to save my dog’s life while you would allow your dog to be murdered, and take that case to my peers in court if required. If you want to make a legal assertion of law in this area, again, the burden of proof is yours with citation.

You are completely wrong about Bush and law. If you speed through a stop sign at 70 mph, hit and run with murder to a pedestrian, and no jury is convened, that DOES NOT MEAN what you did was legal.

In the case of war, the evidence is on the record and similar to your hit and run murder captured on tape. The evidence is right there and waiting for public recognition of what’s right there for anyone to see, and waiting for official application of jurisprudence.

I would welcome Bush taking his argument to court. In this area of law, I’ve provided you with the documentation of law and confidently explain and prove his guilt in the article.

 
At 29 September, 2010 12:09, Blogger Carl Herman said...

2 of 2:
Pat, you’ve now avoided my question for four rounds while I’ve addressed yours. Again, to your pressing interest of how defending family pets from lethal force is protected with application of force: I don’t know the case law, I merely state what I would do under the circumstances I gave while pointing out your strawman arguments.

Again, Pat, and pointing out this is your 4th opportunity:
YOU REFUSE TO EXPLAIN WAR LAW.

Why, Pat? Are you afraid, think it’s too difficult to understand, too irresponsible to look it up, or are you in favor of authoritarian government unlimited by law and hoping your readers will not notice your failure to address this simple and fundamental law?

Answer, Pat, please. So far, we all notice you have not.

If you want to argue that the wars are lawful, go for it. But you’d better be able to accurately explain the legal justification UNDER the law.

If you find the wars unlawful, you'll be just like me: starting as a “good” American trusting and ignorant, then informed but unbelieving, then looking, then looking again from disbelief and shock, then outraged and vocal.

 
At 29 September, 2010 12:23, Blogger Ian G. said...

Thanks for answering my questions, Carl. Also, I don't make jokes to people who have lost loved ones in the disastrous imperial adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Anyway, I have some more questions. Can you comment on the legality of 10-lane NAFTA superhighways and the use of the Amero as common currency. Also, can you use the phrase "foul government" in a sentence.

Thanks bro.

 
At 29 September, 2010 12:45, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

You’re wrong.

You're uninformed. Congress spends a lot of time writing laws, but nobody knows what they actually mean until courts interpret and apply them.

As far as "international law", Congress can simply legislate around it when it wishes to, and the President can bypass it on his own through Executive Orders. This is well documented and not the subject of any legitimate debate. "Supreme law of the land" does not mean what you think it means.

You have more or less logical ideas about how you think the law should work, but you're assuming that's also how the law does work, and you're mistaken.

As an aside -- it is legally impossible to murder an animal. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, in every jurisdiction in the United States. Killing my dog might get you in trouble for property damage, intentional infliction of emotional distress, cruelty to animals, discharging a firearm in city limits, etc. -- but not murder.

 
At 29 September, 2010 12:48, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

As of 12:45PM on 29 September I count nine occurrences of the "If you find the wars unlawful, you'll be just like me..." quote in these comments. All by Carl himself. That, folks, is self-citing that even David Ray Griffin can't hold a candle to.

 
At 29 September, 2010 12:53, Blogger Billman said...

Seriously, Carl?

When answering ConsDemo's question about which body has actually determined the legality of the war, you responded with:

None. In order for a judicial body to rule, there has to be one with jurisdiction and a case filed for ruling.

And then you repeat the exact same thing about UN's process that I explained to you, and then say:

We don't know a legal ruling because none has yet occured.

So then, you have just admitted the war is NOT
illegal... OUTSIDE OF YOUR OPINION.

Which is what I've been saying.

Are you now saying that you have changed your mind, and you're going to apologize for all the "you're spitting in the faces of 5000 dead american soldiers' families!" rhetoric you've been throwing at everyone here who has asked you a question?

Do you still think it's ok to murder someone who threatens your dog?

I mean, not once dide you ever clarify that other more reasonable options exist, like trying to physically stop the person, or talking to them.... Instead you have been saying it is ok to just flat out murder the person who merely threatens your dog and indeed, according to you, that should be the ONLY option, because otherwise "how do we explain that to our families?" Right?

Hey, if you say you were overreacting with the emtional propaganda, and that you understand the legality of the war is not something that you honestly say is definate, then you will earn some respect around here.

 
At 29 September, 2010 16:03, Blogger Triterope said...

Carl's comments read suspiciously close to those wackos who claim that "there is no law in the United States that taxes your wages

True. But do you know who Carl really reminds me of?

Ron Paul.

You know, the guy who wants to save the Constitution... from anyone who might have a different opinion of it than he does.

Carl Herman's sacred document is the U.N. Charter. According to his shitty blog, eeeeeeeeeeeverything about his DURR ILLEGAL WAR DURRRRRRR act is based in the U.N. Charter.

Like the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter is a purposefully vague document, intended to apply to unforeseeable circumstances many years into the future. And make sense in fifty different languages to boot.

From Carl's blog, here's the first citation of actual code supporting his beliefs. (And, true to Carl's writing style, it appears after twelve paragraphs of nothing.)

Article 2:
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.


Well, if you're gonna call that a law, all war is illegal. Congratulations, Carl Herman, you just brokered world peace! Now all you have to do is tell all the armies in the world that they're breaking the law and all the fighting will stop, right? Somewhere Josef Stalin must be thinking "Dammit, why didn't I think of that?"

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity

The U.S. didn't "refrain." OH NOES. Better drag us before the Security Council, oh mighty Non Partisan Examiner of Los Angeles County! We didn't refrain!

Of course, this clause is so goddamn vague that any attempt to hold a nation to it would go nowhere. Not to mention that this sort of nitpicking defeats the purpose of a unilateral agreement to work together.

And by the way, Carl, Article 2 is a subsection of Chapter I, "Purposes and Principles." It's boilerplate text. It's the same crap that appears in the first paragraph of the lease to your crappy apartment, in which you agree not to immediately sue the landlord when you don't get your $300 security deposit back.

5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter

Yep. That's the law the United States apparently broke. "Give the United Nations every assistance in action it takes." Did any nation ever really give the UN "every" assistance?

Carl has written pages and pages of this, but it's all the same formula. The U.S. actions in Iraq and Afghanistan are "illegal" because they violate vague purpose statements in the U.N. Charter, meticulously cross-referenced to other vague purpose statements in the U.N. Charter. And, of course, more tortured analogies.

Don't get me wrong -- you can certainly make an argument that the United States has not acted in the world's best interest. But what you cannot argue is that Carl Herman of Los Angeles, California is the sole arbiter of what constitutes an illegal war, and that anyone who disagrees is disrespecting our dead troops. To that, I say simply this: fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

I didn't mean to make this a Ron Paul rant, but Carl's methods are so similar. He doesn't even try to defend his position, he just acts like it's God-given truth, and that failure to grasp it is a flaw on everyone else's part.

Just like Ron Paul does. He just wants to save the Constitution. You want to save the Constitution, don't you? Or are you going to disrespect our 5,000 dead troops and their families?

And this is exactly why Ron Paul and his retarded worshippers frighten me so much. They fall for this act soooooooooooooooooo easily.

 
At 29 September, 2010 16:04, Blogger Triterope said...

Carl's comments read suspiciously close to those wackos who claim that "there is no law in the United States that taxes your wages

True. But do you know who Carl really reminds me of?

Ron Paul.

You know, the guy who wants to save the Constitution... from anyone who might have a different opinion of it than he does.

Carl Herman's sacred document is the U.N. Charter. According to his shitty blog, eeeeeeeeeeeverything about his DURR ILLEGAL WAR DURRRRRRR act is based in the U.N. Charter.

Like the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter is a purposefully vague document, intended to apply to unforeseeable circumstances many years into the future. And make sense in fifty different languages to boot.

From Carl's blog, here's the first citation of actual code supporting his beliefs. (And, true to Carl's writing style, it appears after twelve paragraphs of nothing.)

Article 2:
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.


Well, if you're gonna call that a law, all war is illegal. Congratulations, Carl Herman, you just brokered world peace! Now all you have to do is tell all the armies in the world that they're breaking the law and all the fighting will stop, right? Somewhere Josef Stalin must be thinking "Dammit, why didn't I think of that?"

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity

The U.S. didn't "refrain." OH NOES. Better drag us before the Security Council, oh mighty Non Partisan Examiner of Los Angeles County! We didn't refrain!

Of course, this clause is so goddamn vague that any attempt to hold a nation to it would go nowhere. Not to mention that this sort of nitpicking defeats the purpose of a unilateral agreement to work together.

And by the way, Carl, Article 2 is a subsection of Chapter I, "Purposes and Principles." It's boilerplate text. It's the same crap that appears in the first paragraph of the lease to your crappy apartment, in which you agree not to immediately sue the landlord when you don't get your $300 security deposit back.

(continued)

 
At 29 September, 2010 16:06, Blogger Triterope said...

5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter

Yep. That's the law the United States apparently broke. "Give the United Nations every assistance in action it takes." Did any nation ever really give the UN "every" assistance?

Carl has written pages and pages of this, but it's all the same formula. The U.S. actions in Iraq and Afghanistan are "illegal" because they violate vague purpose statements in the U.N. Charter, meticulously cross-referenced to other vague purpose statements in the U.N. Charter. And, of course, more tortured analogies.

Don't get me wrong -- you can certainly make an argument that the United States has not acted in the world's best interest. But what you cannot argue is that Carl Herman of Los Angeles, California is the sole arbiter of what constitutes an illegal war, and that anyone who disagrees is disrespecting our dead troops. To that, I say simply this: fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

I didn't mean to make this a Ron Paul rant, but Carl's methods are so similar. He doesn't even try to defend his position, he just acts like it's God-given truth, and that failure to grasp it is a flaw on everyone else's part.

Just like Ron Paul does. He just wants to save the Constitution. You want to save the Constitution, don't you? Or are you going to disrespect our 5,000 dead troops and their families?

And this is exactly why Ron Paul and his retarded worshippers frighten me so much. They fall for this act soooooooooooooooooo easily.

 
At 29 September, 2010 16:58, Blogger Carl Herman said...

Ian:
No, bro.

You just distract from a professional explaining the wars that killed loved sons and daughters are unlawful by raising the compelling topic of “attack baboons.”

Your intent is clear to avoid confirming or refuting this topic.

 
At 29 September, 2010 17:06, Blogger Carl Herman said...

“Richard…”:
I accept your refusal to explain war law. You refuse to do it.

I accept your declaration that you are incapable of determining what a law means until your daddy in a court tells you. I accept your surrender to being told, being dictated to, and the same defense as Nazi officials used of “just following orders.”

That’s you.

Americans hold their government responsible under the law because they can understand the law for themselves. The fundamental idea of trial by jury is that idea in action that given a few moments of attention and reflection, Americans can and should understand laws and the facts of a case.

But not for you, “Richard…”; you argue you can’t do it and neither can Americans.

Yeah; you focus on Richard Gage’s body parts; you don’t belong in a discussion of war law; you just can’t do it.

All those with “Richard…” please excuse yourselves from the discussion now.

 
At 29 September, 2010 17:23, Blogger Carl Herman said...

Billman:
I also accept your refusal to explain war law, and note your failure to perform your promise to read it (at least your failure to report).

And no, your speaking for me is inaccurate. You aren’t paying attention or hope readers are too stupid to do so; I wrote that if you intentionally drive 70 mph in a residential zone and kill a pedestrian with a hit and run, a crime has occurred in that moment.

But you disagree and argue that some authority in a court dictates rather than the existence of objective facts and law. You need a dictator rather than being prepared to understand simple law yourself.

You must never complain about an official’s ruling in a sport, right Billman? Your “superman” image in reality is to respond, “Gee, whatever anyone says is just an opinion. We can’t say anything until an umpire tells us what happened. I refuse to discuss instant replay; because the facts don’t matter.”

You might just get your wish of living under dictatorship rather than a constitutional republic under the law and held accountable to act under the law by We the People.

Your refusal to explain war law disqualifies you from discussing it. I, and real Americans, engage in explanation, documentation, and evidence. In the real world, juries then vote. But because you refuse to engage in the evidence because you need your daddy, then ok.

Go off and discuss hypothetical cases of protecting family pets. Good luck with that path.

 
At 29 September, 2010 17:53, Blogger Carl Herman said...

Triterope:
1 of 2:

At least you read the law; thank you.

Article 51 explains self-defense as a lawful use of force, that I then explain with how “self-defense” is defined with nations’ use of force.

So, no, you’re wrong that all war is unlawful. And then you go Orwellian:

You argue that “peaceful means” and “cooperation with the UN” are vague.

You argue that current US wars can be confused as peaceful. You argue that war is peace.

You argue that US defiance of UNSC resolutions can be confused with cooperation. You argue that defiance is cooperation.

I accept your Orwellian submission to US political “leadership” because any argument against their interpretation of law is meaningless because the law is so vague.

Like Billman, you must watch sports and never complain of an umpire/referee’s call because the rules are just so vague that they’re really able to interpret them however they see it. You must say that the facts aren’t meant to be governed by the sport’s rules; those are secondary to the vagueness of the rules. If war can so easily be confused with peace, then out is safe, touching a base is not touching.

 
At 29 September, 2010 17:53, Blogger Carl Herman said...

2 of 2:
You go ahead and be afraid of Ron Paul and people like me who explain, document, and prove facts.

But, yeah, I do state that your silence is complicit in the deaths of American soldiers because it’s too difficult for you to discern “war” from “peaceful means.”

I invite readers to choose sides:

1. Stand with Ian’s distractions; the refusal to discuss war law of Pat, Billman, and “Richard…”; and Triterope’s assertion that the laws forged from two world wars by America’s brightest minds are too vague to ever stop a war and people like me who say otherwise should be told, “Fuck you” with more emphasis on discussing animals.

2. Stand with millions of Americans who assert that laws are meant to be clear, and are in most cases. Your mother’s instructions were usually clear, sports rules are clear, laws like speeding are clear, and war laws are written with special care to be crystal-clear. Stand with us that in this case the facts and law are sooooooooooo clear that anyone who looks can see the “emperor has no clothes” facts.

Choose carefully, readers. You will have the future you work for.

 
At 29 September, 2010 17:55, Blogger Carl Herman said...

Hey, Pat:
I think I’m done here. Are you proud enough of your blog for me to copy these exchanges in a series of articles? No promises that I will, as I think I’ve previously written enough on this topic, but I might be interested.

I’m willing for you to write an introductory section in balance of the one I would write.

Interested?

 
At 29 September, 2010 18:09, Blogger Billman said...

Alright Carl, earlier I was in the process of reading your stuff when I noticed 40 new comments since I last checked. That's when you declared to ConsDemo that the wars have never been declared legal by anyone, except you. I was pointing this out.

However, instead of even addressing this, it appears you just want to change the goalposts, yet again, by declaring that you give up, and then you proceed to make a thousand different assumptions about everyone, laced with ad-homs.

Seriously, childish. Now, do you WANT to discuss your article, or not? Do you just automatically assume that what you write instantly causes whoever reads it to suddenly agree with your view 100%? And if not, then they "must not have read it?" That's a bit arrogant.

And if you didn't mean to admit that the "illegality of the Iraq war" was nothing more than your opinion, then why did you say exactly that? Sorry if pointing out your contradictions pisses you off, but that IS what you said.

And this continued arguing over SEMANTICS is ridiculous. Technically, in every way that matters, the war is not actually ILLEGAL...

...yet.

And what you are really arguing is wether or not the war in Iraq was RIGHT. Legal or not, was it the RIGHT thing to do? Did the US go about it the RIGHT way? Have the consequences been worth it?

That is what you are arguing. And probably what we should be discussing.

 
At 29 September, 2010 18:17, Blogger Billman said...

And, if you look at the first 3 comments of this thread, I asked YOU to explain "Lawful War."

Which you then somehow decided to rewrite history with your next comment where you state that it was actually YOU challenging everyone else to explain, while pimping an article your wrote...

Explain why anyone should take you seriously, when you contradict yourself, refuse to answer anything directly without insulting everyone or showing any respect, and blatanly ignore anything that contradicts your world view.

Look, it has happened here before, someone comes in here and manages to actually change our minds about an issue and makes a good point. But you're not doing it, and you're just calling everyone ignorant out of frustration because you're not doing it.

Seriously, speak like a grown up, and this debate may actually get somewhere.

And Pat, can I also have permission to use this exchange? We wouldn't want only ONE point of view about it to exist, would we?

 
At 29 September, 2010 18:20, Blogger Triterope said...

And the horse you rode in on, Carl.

 
At 29 September, 2010 18:42, Blogger Carl Herman said...

Billman:
1 of 2:
That’s right; no court has made a ruling either way. Daddy hasn’t told us yet. And if you did read “Open proposal to US higher education,” then you’re lying: it’s full of expert testimony to explain, document, and prove what one simple law means and in this case, what the uncontested and therefore non-controversial facts are.

As I pointed out, this expert testimony includes all 27 UK Foreign Office attorneys; whose opinion was silenced for public consideration until January of this year.

You want back in? Fine: explain war law to us. We’re all waiting.

And here’s the difference (not where you position me, and cite my damn words, liar, rather than ever speak for me): I say war law is as simple as the strike zone in baseball. I say the facts show the current US wars are not even close to lawful and anyone who looks will see it. I say this is objective fact.

You say, and correct me if I’m wrong, that we can’t know legal or illegal until a court rules for us (and are you assuming a government-appointed daddy judge we don’t question, or will you put citizens on the jury responsible to understand and rule on law and facts?). You say law is semantics and ridiculous to discuss because we can’t decide this for ourselves.

 
At 29 September, 2010 18:46, Blogger Carl Herman said...

2 of 2:
You then attempt to reframe the argument from unlawful war from what I say is crystal-clear letter and intent of law and fully documented and uncontested facts in the objective domain to an argument of subjective agreement/disagreement, right/wrong.

No.

My argument is the wars are unlawful in Orwellian degree. My argument is everyone in military service who honors their Oath of Enlistment must immediately refuse all orders in support of these unlawful wars. My argument is for Americans to embrace the law and end our “leadership” crimes either through prosecution, or as I argue in my paper, through a Truth and Reconciliation process because of the depth of criminal acts at the tops of both parties.

You said that you want in. Explain war law to us, Billman. I repeat:

If you want to argue that the wars are lawful, go for it. But you’d better be able to accurately explain the legal justification UNDER the law.

If you find the wars unlawful, you'll be just like me: starting as a “good” American trusting and ignorant, then informed but unbelieving, then looking, then looking again from disbelief and shock, then outraged and vocal.

 
At 29 September, 2010 18:56, Blogger paul w said...

Carl,

In Aussie, if you killed someone for shooting your dawg, you'd be in deep, deep shit.

I'm no legal expert, but I rekon you'd be charged with something called 'murder'.

As a matter of interest, I'd like to hear of the other things you believe people should be shot for.

Just askin'

 
At 29 September, 2010 19:01, Blogger Carl Herman said...

Triterope and Bill:
Triterope: thank you; I did address your animal reference.

Bill: we commented at the same time; I'll respond to your second part next.

 
At 29 September, 2010 19:02, Blogger Carl Herman said...

Bill and readers:
I did explain war law right after you asked, liar. It’s right there at “27 September, 2010 20:00.” The article provides documentation.

If you say that’s wrong, then the burden of proof is yours. Explain war law; so far, you’ve refused and just whine on and on about my character rather than addressing the legal argument I summarized in the comment you lie about, and document in the article you refuse to address.

You want in? We’re waiting for you to address the facts of war law.

And one more time:

If you want to argue that the wars are lawful, go for it. But you’d better be able to accurately explain the legal justification UNDER the law.

If you find the wars unlawful, you'll be just like me: starting as a “good” American trusting and ignorant, then informed but unbelieving, then looking, then looking again from disbelief and shock, then outraged and vocal.

 
At 29 September, 2010 19:09, Blogger Carl Herman said...

Paul w, Pat, and readers:
Please note the “interest” to shift the conversation from understanding war law and the explanation, documentation, and proof that current US wars are unlawful.

I’m done here with the possible exception of Billman if he wants to address war law.

Pat, if you’re interested in having your site and this conversation available to a broader audience, let me know.

 
At 29 September, 2010 19:11, Blogger Billman said...

Carl,
1 of.. however many this will be.

That’s right; no court has made a ruling either way.

Ok, my point is, the soldiers you are demanding that they follow the part of the oath to defend this country against unlawfulness, kind of NEED that ruling before they can do what you're suggesting. That's kind of my whole point.

Otherwise, they're just commiting treason.

Daddy hasn’t told us yet.

Well, WHO in your opinion, needs to be the one to tell us?

(And I apologize, I still haven't read your article. I promise I will later tonight. Shit happens.)

And if you did read “Open proposal to US higher education,” then you’re lying: it’s full of expert testimony to explain, document, and prove what one simple law means and in this case, what the uncontested and therefore non-controversial facts are.

According to YOU, though, right?

And here’s the difference (not where you position me, and cite my damn words, liar, rather than ever speak for me):

Such anger.

I say war law is as simple as the strike zone in baseball. I say the facts show the current US wars are not even close to lawful and anyone who looks will see it. I say this is objective fact.

Yes, but YOU SAYING that it is fact, does not neccessarily mean it is a legally binding statement, and therefore our soldiers should overthrow the government.

 
At 29 September, 2010 19:15, Blogger Billman said...

Carl:
2 of whatever.

You say, and correct me if I’m wrong, that we can’t know legal or illegal until a court rules for us

No, I'm saying, soldiers can't refuse orders and overthrow governments at will until a court rules that those orders are illegal.

(and are you assuming a government-appointed daddy judge we don’t question, or will you put citizens on the jury responsible to understand and rule on law and facts?).

Whatever your personal feelings towards the MAN are, I don't really care, nor do I neccessarily NOT share the same view about them. Yet you assume whatever you want.

You say law is semantics and ridiculous to discuss because we can’t decide this for ourselves.

No, I say we're basically arguing over semantics, instead of the real issue of wether or not the war was right. I feel like we've just been arguing over definitions but not the... spirit?.. I guess.

 
At 29 September, 2010 19:18, Blogger Billman said...

Carl:
3 of whatever..

You then attempt to reframe the argument from unlawful war from what I say is crystal-clear letter and intent of law and fully documented and uncontested facts in the objective domain to an argument of subjective agreement/disagreement, right/wrong.

Because that's what this really is all about.


No.

My argument is the wars are unlawful in Orwellian degree. My argument is everyone in military service who honors their Oath of Enlistment must immediately refuse all orders in support of these unlawful wars.


Sigh... once it has actually been declared illegal according those guidelines to which our service members have taken that oath (i.e. THE UCMJ), only THEN can they do that and not be held accountable for treason.

My argument is for Americans to embrace the law and end our “leadership” crimes either through prosecution, or as I argue in my paper, through a Truth and Reconciliation process because of the depth of criminal acts at the tops of both parties.

But them being "criminal acts" is all speculation and up for debate. And this is the problem.

 
At 29 September, 2010 19:22, Blogger Billman said...

Carl:
4 of whatever.

If you want to argue that the wars are lawful, go for it.

That's NOT what I'm arguing. I'm pointing out that they just aren't ILLEGAL. Wether they are lawful or not, noone has decided.

I'm saying they are in "legality limbo" ,neither legal or illegal, because no actual court has ruled on a verdict about that.

So service members CAN'T really do anything until a verdict has been decided.

If you find the wars unlawful, you'll be just like me: starting as a “good” American trusting and ignorant, then informed but unbelieving, then looking, then looking again from disbelief and shock, then outraged and vocal.

Except, I probably wont talk down to people and call them ignorant, and recite typic troofer mantra, while making references to other works (i.e. the Emperor has no clothes)...

 
At 29 September, 2010 19:25, Blogger Billman said...

Carl:
5 of 5.
Bill and readers:
I did explain war law right after you asked, liar. It’s right there at “27 September, 2010 20:00.” The article provides documentation.


Your comment is basically:

"Bill, my explanation is in my article. Oh and, smartass, you're spitting in the face of dead soldiers, etc... my opinion, etc..."

That's not an explanation, buddy. It's directions to what you claim will be your explanation. I will read it after I post this.

Bill: we commented at the same time; I'll respond to your second part next.

No big deal. You don't see ME getting all bent out of shape about every comment...

 
At 29 September, 2010 19:33, Blogger Carl Herman said...

Bill:
Read the article and then have something to say. I appreciate your willingness to do so.

Again: I say war law is as simple as the strike zone in baseball. I say the facts show the current US wars are not even close to lawful and anyone who looks will see it.

I say this is objective fact and impossible to make an argument otherwise, just as it's impossible to rationally argue a pitch ten feet over the batter's head is in the strike zone.

I reject that Americans need a court to rule on the obvious. I make my case that war law is obvious in “Open proposal to US higher education” and “US war laws explained”. The first gives context and expert testimony. The second focuses on war law and its application to current US wars.

You read, and then:

If you want to argue that the wars are lawful, go for it. But you’d better be able to accurately explain the legal justification UNDER the law.

If you find the wars unlawful, you'll be just like me: starting as a “good” American trusting and ignorant, then informed but unbelieving, then looking, then looking again from disbelief and shock, then outraged and vocal.

 
At 29 September, 2010 19:54, Blogger Billman said...

As I started reading this article, (I began with 2 of 4, since as you claim in it's description, it offers "obvious FACTS" as to why the war is illegal, since that is relevant to our discussion.) I am forced to ask, where did you learn to write?

Must you constantly insult your readers with "if you don't agree with me, you are ignorant?" You even make it a point to descibe the word is Greek.

You're basically starting out declaring that you are biased and unwilling to listen to opposing viewpoints. And when writing something like this, aren't you supposed to be... objective? And aren't you also, as a responsible writer, supposed to provide the alternative viewpoint as contrast to your subject?

Instead, you automatically, and constantly, declare your reader to be ignorant if they do not share your view. It's alienating, and caused me to skim the rest of the article for the so called "obvious FACTS" you claimed would prove the war is illegal.

Instead, this article is similar to everything you've posted here: you post quotes from people who agree with you, and misrepresent others.

Are you this way with students you teach?

Now, I will go back and attempt to read your article more thoroughly, but if you want to make progress in getting people on your side, you need to not be so biased in your attempts at explaining why.

 
At 29 September, 2010 20:08, Blogger Billman said...

As I started reading this article, (I began with 2 of 4, since as you claim in it's description, it offers "obvious FACTS" as to why the war is illegal, since that is relevant to our discussion.) I am forced to ask, where did you learn to write?

Must you constantly insult your readers with "if you don't agree with me, you are ignorant?" You even make it a point to descibe the word is Greek. You're basically starting out declaring that you are biased and unwilling to listen to opposing viewpoints. And when writing something like this, aren't you supposed to be objective? And aren't you also, as a responsible writer, supposed to provide the alternative viewpoint as contrast to your subject? Instead, you automatically, and constantly, declare your reader to be ignorant if they do not share your view. It's alienating, and caused me to skim the rest of the article for the so called "obvious FACTS" you claimed would prove the war is illegal.

Instead, this article is similar to everything you've posted here: you post quotes from people who agree with you, and misrepresent others. Are you this way with students you teach?

Now, I will go back and attempt to read your article more thoroughly, but if you want to make progress in getting people on your side, you need to not be so biased in your attempts at explaining why.

 
At 29 September, 2010 20:16, Blogger Billman said...

Carl:
1 of 2.

As I started reading your article, (I began with 2 of 4, since as you claim in it's description, it offers "obvious FACTS" that prove why the war is illegal, as this is relevant to our discussion.)

I am forced to ask, where did you learn to write?

MUST you constantly insult your readers with statements that amount to "if you don't agree with me, you are ignorant?" You even make it a point to actually DESCRIBE THAT THE WORD IS GREEK.

And you are basically starting out declaring that you are biased and unwilling to listen to opposing viewpoints...

 
At 29 September, 2010 20:18, Blogger Billman said...

Carl,
2 of 2.

And when writing something like this, aren't you supposed to be objective? And aren't you also, as a responsible writer, supposed to provide the alternative viewpoint as contrast to your subject? Instead, you automatically, and constantly, declare your reader to be ignorant if they do not share your view. It's alienating, and caused me to skim the rest of the article for the so called "obvious FACTS" you claimed would prove the war is illegal.

Instead, this article is similar to everything you've posted here: you post quotes from people who agree with you, and misrepresent others. Are you this way with students you teach?

Now, I will go back and attempt to read your article more thoroughly, but if you want to make progress in getting people to understand your viewpoint, you need to not talk down to them so much.

 
At 29 September, 2010 20:50, Blogger paul w said...

Carl, I wasn't shifting any “interest” from the conversation.

I was asking, if you'd kill someone for threatening your dog, what else would you kill for?

Pretty simple, really. Any chance of a reply?

Btw, you're name isn't Brian Good, is it?

 
At 29 September, 2010 20:55, Blogger Billman said...


Btw, you're name isn't Brian Good, is it?


No, trust me, he's really Carl Herman. But yeah, the similarities are eerie.

 
At 29 September, 2010 21:07, Blogger paul w said...

Indeed.

 
At 29 September, 2010 21:14, Blogger Ian G. said...

Hey Carl, can you tell us what you think of Willie Rodriguez?

Thanks, dude.

 
At 29 September, 2010 23:32, Blogger Pat said...

Billman, yeah, Carl definitely goes overboard on how everything is "Emperor's new clothes obvious".

 
At 30 September, 2010 04:30, Blogger Triterope said...

Carl reminds me more of Boris Epstein. He thinks his opinions are law, and can't understand why other people might not see it that way.

Furthermore, Carl doesn't seem to understand the concept of an opinion. How many times on this thread did someone try to illustrate the subjective nature of his claims, only to have Carl respond by restating his opinion?

And do you know else I find interesting? Carl's obsessed with the U.S.'s "illegal war", but has nothing to say about other warlike acts. Such us, just off the top of my head, hijacking four jetliners full of civilians and crashing them into buildings. Carl's got nothing to say about the legality of that act, does he?

Sad. But I suppose Carl's another example of how diseased your mind has to be to find 9-11 Truth convincing.

 
At 30 September, 2010 06:07, Blogger Billman said...

Triterope, I just finished reading all 4 parts of his proposal, and I don't think Carl's really a troofer...

Though, in part 3, he does mention the "Pentagon lost 2.3 trillion!" misconception that troofers love. It shows he has done no research about it, or attempted to understand what was actually being said. However, that hasn't stopped him from claiming it as "proof that current us wars are unlawful to an Orwellian degree."

But that's as close as he's come to anything "9/11 was an inside jobby job!" that I have read from him so far. He seems more intent on blaming US education and the Government for everything that has ever gone wrong in the world ever.

 
At 30 September, 2010 06:12, Blogger Billman said...

Carl
1 of (I'll say 4 for now)

I agree with you that the corporate media is full of shit, and noone should place too much faith in anything they report.

But I disagree with you as to why they do it. It's not some government run conspiracy to keep the masses as dumb sheeple. It's about ratings.

And there ARE other ways to get legitimate news from non corporate media sources. Your view is rather one of "everyone else is willfully stupid" and very pessimistic.

 
At 30 September, 2010 06:17, Blogger Billman said...

Carl
2 of 4.

Corporate media may be the primary source for news that most people get, but its not the only source.

Next, your so claimed facts that the war is illegal, amount to quotes from every Harvard intellectual, and american icon that ever lived, that you have cherry picked to conform to your view. As well as misconeptions you base on your own interpretation of the laws.

And all you ever attempt to do in your article to prove your viewpoints is with vague allusions to other things that "definately prove currents us wars.. Orwellian.. etc.." without actually saying anything.

 
At 30 September, 2010 06:22, Blogger Billman said...

Carl
3 of 4

You tell your readers to go spend hours reading other things and that they must have the "moral courage" to interpret them exactly like you do, with the subtle hint that they are ignorant sheeple if they reject it.

You also seem to have delusions that you're going to be the catalyst for the next Civil Rights movement.

You are coming across as arrogant, and unwilling to listen to opposing viewpoints and indeed, attacking people with childish ad-hominem when they do.

 
At 30 September, 2010 06:22, Blogger Carl Herman said...

1 of 2:
Bill: you again resort to speaking for me, rather than cite evidence. You then use your words to characterize me. This is a strawman argument then devolved into ad hominem.

So far, you have not approached professional and academic standards by addressing the evidence of what war law says and how it applies. So far, therefore, all you have is empty rhetoric.

Today, you advance the argument that what I write is not factual, but opinion. You do so without talking about war law at all; therefore providing an a priori argument again completely without evidence of the war law itself.

Bill attempts to drive the conversation from US wars being unlawful and thereby must be stopped under US law to having a subjective chat about right and wrong in a world where the law and acts are just opinions that cannot be definitively understood.

The purpose of law is clear rules that anyone can tell if they are upheld or violated. In most cases, we all experience that this works. Your mother told you, “Don’t touch a hot stove.” Your teachers told you, “Don’t interrupt someone when they are speaking.” You saw and read, “If the ball is caught by a player touching the base before the runner touches the base, the runner is out.” You see signs, “Speed limit 25.”

 
At 30 September, 2010 06:23, Blogger Carl Herman said...

2 of 2:
I explain, document, and prove that war law is as clear as the strike zone in baseball.

So far, there’s been no attempt for refutation except Triterope’s claims that laws are so vague that “peaceful means” cannot be discerned from US use of force in Afghanistan and Iraq, and “cooperation” cannot be discerned from violation of what the UN Security Council resolved to do. Triterope’s testimony is an example of what people mean when they speak of Orwellian double-speak.

For anyone who wants to live up to the purpose of an education, to discern fact from spin, you’ve been shown revealing testimony from the comments.

Let’s see what Bill has.

Pat: since I go so overboard, then that must mean that you’re proud of this conversation going to my website, since it will obviously educate how “Troofers” are divorced from reality (despite the fact that discussing war law is not about what happened on 9/11). You’ll be doing a public service.

Proud to go public, Pat? Just think of all the people you’ll reach with your message.

May I post the comments on your site onto my site?

 
At 30 September, 2010 06:24, Blogger Carl Herman said...

Bill:
we're commenting at the same time again. I'll read and return.

 
At 30 September, 2010 06:25, Blogger Carl Herman said...

2 of 2:
I explain, document, and prove that war law is as clear as the strike zone in baseball.

So far, there’s been no attempt for refutation except Triterope’s claims that laws are so vague that “peaceful means” cannot be discerned from US use of force in Afghanistan and Iraq, and “cooperation” cannot be discerned from violation of what the UN Security Council resolved to do. Triterope’s testimony is an example of what people mean when they speak of Orwellian double-speak.

For anyone who wants to live up to the purpose of an education, to discern fact from spin, you’ve been shown revealing testimony from the comments.

Let’s see what Bill has.

Pat: since I go so overboard, then that must mean that you’re proud of this conversation going to my website, since it will obviously educate how “Troofers” are divorced from reality (despite the fact that discussing war law is not about what happened on 9/11). You’ll be doing a public service.

Proud to go public, Pat? Just think of all the people you’ll reach with your message.

May I post the comments on your site onto my site?

 
At 30 September, 2010 06:28, Blogger Carl Herman said...

2 of 2:
I explain, document, and prove that war law is as clear as the strike zone in baseball.

So far, there’s been no attempt for refutation except Triterope’s claims that laws are so vague that “peaceful means” cannot be discerned from US use of force in Afghanistan and Iraq, and “cooperation” cannot be discerned from violation of what the UN Security Council resolved to do. Triterope’s testimony is an example of what people mean when they speak of Orwellian double-speak.

For anyone who wants to live up to the purpose of an education, to discern fact from spin, you’ve been shown revealing testimony from the comments.

Let’s see what Bill has.

Pat: since I go so overboard, then that must mean that you’re proud of this conversation going to my website, since it will obviously educate how “Troofers” are divorced from reality (despite the fact that discussing war law is not about what happened on 9/11). You’ll be doing a public service.

Proud to go public, Pat? Just think of all the people you’ll reach with your message.

 
At 30 September, 2010 06:32, Blogger Billman said...

Carl
4 of 4.

In conculsion:
1) you seem to think that you are brilliant and when others don't, you have no idea why and attack them for it. I seriously hope all educators aren't like this.

2) your work is rather cliched "the government is obviously evil" type stuff. But you make some interesting observations. If you could get rid of the arrogant assumptions and subtle hints to your readers that they are morans, you might actually have a good point to make.

3) nowhere in your work did you ever PROVE any current us war to be illegal with anything other than your opinion.

 
At 30 September, 2010 06:34, Blogger Billman said...

So I ask you, again, why should our service members refuse to follow orders based on your opinion when doing so without a declaration of the legality of the war (one that the US will actually acknowledge) is akin to treason?

 
At 30 September, 2010 06:40, Blogger Billman said...

Carl, this is just me giving your crticism on your work. If you're taking offense to it and declaring it to be "devolving into ad-hominem" that's not my intention. I'm not trying to piss you off or attack you in any way.

I'm trying to point out to that the goal you're going for, which is to get people to agree with your point of view, is not possible if you keep talking down to everyone.

As for the actual content of your article...

 
At 30 September, 2010 06:46, Blogger Billman said...

... you make a number of personal opinions based on your interpretation of US laws. This is all your article is. You keep declaring it as fact, though, and this is what we keep arguging about. Your opinion is not fact.

Is the war fucked up and wrong? Well, you seem to convinced me it is for the most part.. but not for the reasons you claim.

However, how is that really different than any other war ever waged anywhere else ever?

 
At 30 September, 2010 06:51, Blogger Billman said...

Anyway, I'm done for now. I'll let you catch up with all of that (we seriously need to somehow increase the comment size limit, guys).

You've got a long way to go Carl, if you think the way you talk to people is going to convince them that what you are saying is correct and should be how the law is interpreted. I think you could get your point across, and maybe actually get somewhere with it, if you shut off the ad-hominem and arrogance. And I don't think you're doing it intentionally, but rather just so used to being that way.

 
At 30 September, 2010 07:10, Blogger Billman said...

As educators, aren't you supposed to subscribe to a higher standard of responsibility? Aren't you supposed to encourage students to think for themselves? Aren't you supposed to encourage debate from different points of view?

Instead, Carl seems to absue his power as an educator and declare that anyone who doesn't think exactly the same way he does is ignorant. Not once has ever respected any one else's opinion in this thread. Isn't that kind of the LAST thing an educator is ever supposed to do?

Perhaps, ironically, the problem he has with US Education may very well be because of people like himself.

 
At 30 September, 2010 07:13, Blogger Philip said...

Carl,

You're a fruit loop. You're not going to convince any sane person, especially the people who read this blog, of anything, no matter what you type.

You are a stupid jackass.

You wrote:

"I think I’m done here."

I wish you were.

Your crazy blathering is irrelevant to everyone. We are laughing at you.

Nobody has any need nor desire to answer your stupid questions.

Go away and let the grown-ups laugh at how pathetic you are. Moron.

 
At 30 September, 2010 10:58, Blogger Carl Herman said...

Bill, Pat, and yes, even Philip:
1 of 3:

I explain, document, and prove that war law is as clear as the strike zone in baseball.

So far, there’s been no attempt for refutation except Triterope’s claims that laws are so vague that “peaceful means” cannot be discerned from US use of force in Afghanistan and Iraq, and “cooperation” cannot be discerned from violation of what the UN Security Council resolved to do. Triterope’s testimony is an example of what people mean when they speak of Orwellian double-speak.

For anyone who wants to live up to the purpose of an education, to discern fact from spin, you’ve been shown revealing testimony from the comments of the level of propaganda to obfuscate and avoid factual discussion.

Bill, given his chance to once again explain war law, wrote about opinion and interpretation rather than ever ever ever ever addressing what war law says. He wants people to avoid that direct discussion.

Yes, I say laws are meant to be understood and can be objectively measured in almost all cases. War law states that only self-defense is allowed, with “self-defense” defined as against armed attack by another nation’s government. The US fails to meet this qualification. War law states that the UN Security Council has jurisdiction for nations’ use of force outside the narrow and clear definition of self-defense; UNSC resolved clearly in policy for Afghanistan and Iraq. The US violated those multiple UNSC resolutions and used military force.

 
At 30 September, 2010 11:02, Blogger Carl Herman said...

2 of 3:
Just as in baseball, some pitches are close and can be argued as “on the corner,” and some wild pitches are not even close to the strike zone. Yes, I explain, document, and prove current US wars are not even close to lawful war.

I make the case that this is objective fact outside the realms of opinion and interpretation. Bill and the rest do not address the law and facts, but stay in a priori arguments, while Triterope goes Orwellian to argue for confusion between US use of military force and “peaceful means.”

Yeah, I’m done, Philip.

Readers can choose between Philip’s way of responding to the issue of war law and factual discovery, or what I represent with prima facie factual claims, documentation, and willingness to engage in factual discussion for the legitimate areas that Bill points to but does not enter: interpretation and opinion OF THE FACTS once those facts are established. Because Bill refuses to discuss facts of law and war, he surrenders his opinion as literally unsubstantiated and factless.

And that’s the central issue: I assert there are objective facts in the law and war. These people do not, with only Triterope citing the law to make his argument.

Thank you, Triterope for providing documentation for readers to evaluate the credibility of your argument.

 
At 30 September, 2010 11:03, Blogger Carl Herman said...

3 of 3:
Pat: since I go so overboard, then that must mean that you’re proud of this conversation going to my website, since it will obviously educate how “Troofers” are divorced from reality (despite the fact that discussing war law is not about what happened on 9/11).

You’ll be doing a public service.

Proud to go public, Pat? Just think of all the people you’ll reach with your message.

May I post the comments on your site onto my site?

 
At 30 September, 2010 11:24, Blogger Philip said...

Carl, I'm not reading your rambling insane statements. I hope it makes you feel good to write them for nobody.

Crazy people are funny.

 
At 30 September, 2010 12:02, Blogger Ian G. said...

Carl, can you please let me know what your opinion is on Willie Rodriguez? Also, do you think smoldering carpets could have accounted for all the smoke at the WTC?

Thanks cuz.

 
At 30 September, 2010 14:07, Blogger Billman said...

willingness to engage in factual discussion for the legitimate areas that Bill points to but does not enter: interpretation and opinion OF THE FACTS once those facts are established.

You come on here, state your opinion as fact, which you then reference sources to back up your claims that turn out to alsbo your opinion that you wrote somewhere else.

Please, all you need to do is show me the passage, law, or whatever, that you are saying is proof the wars are unlawful. It's certianly not in your article.

 
At 30 September, 2010 14:08, Blogger Billman said...

Heh, alsbo is supposed to be "also be"

 
At 30 September, 2010 15:51, Blogger Triterope said...

Triterope, I just finished reading all 4 parts of his proposal, and I don't think Carl's really a troofer...

Well, I just went by the OP that called him a "9-11 nutbar."

 
At 30 September, 2010 16:24, Blogger Carl Herman said...

Billman:
You are a lying sack of spin. Do a search on this page and you'll find ten times that I give you the name of the article that walks you through the law, section by section, that you even said that you read. The name of the article is, "US war laws explained."

That's 11 times now.

You must have tried these kinds of lies with your mother when she explained a rule in your home and somehow won.

Good luck in life with that philosophy.

 
At 30 September, 2010 16:31, Blogger Triterope said...

Triterope’s testimony is an example of what people mean when they speak of Orwellian double-speak.

Oh, come on. Doublespeak? Really? I'd love to hear you elaborate on that. Do you really think Orwell had me in mind when he envisioned the concept of doublespeak in 1984?

 
At 30 September, 2010 17:01, Blogger Pat said...

Carl's a 9-11 Truther, see here:

http://www.examiner.com/la-county-nonpartisan-in-los-angeles/who-are-9-11-truthers-what-is-the-9-11-truth-movement

 
At 30 September, 2010 17:57, Blogger avicenne said...

It's all becoming clear now. That article mentions Loose Change, nanothermite, "Dr" David Ray Griffin, the Japanese nut who backtracked the minute that he saw the shit he was in, and for good measure a Box Boy video. The only thing missing is "pull it".

 
At 30 September, 2010 18:02, Blogger Billman said...

Carl, that's what I've been trying to get through to you yet for some reason it is the most difficult thing for you to understand.

Every source you cite is "I've linked to this other thing" without describing what part of that other thing you are using. You just automatically assume everyone is going to take from it exactly what you did.

I keep asking you to describe to me, here, what it is that makes you think that way. That's all. Yet you keep getting pissed. Its a simple request. Copy and paste, for everyone here to see, the sections of the law that you think support your claim. Christ.

 
At 30 September, 2010 18:29, Blogger Carl Herman said...

From "US war laws explained" for those of you incapable of reading an online article:

Letter of the UN Charter: The UN Charter is a Treaty in Force; an active US treaty. Article VI of the US Constitution declares treaties as having equal power with Constitutional law and laws from Congress. This is also known as the Supremacy Clause:

“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.”

Therefore what the US president and 2/3 of the Senate have agreed to in a treaty is the law of the US until such time as the US rescinds that treaty obligation. The UN Charter is therefore the law of the US with its clear restrictions of using war as a foreign policy option.

It's also helpful to understand what the UN is not. The only area of legal authority of the UN is security/use of force; all other areas are advise for individual nation's legislature's consideration. The UN is not global government. It is a global agreement to end wars of choice outside of a very narrow legal definition of national self-defense against another nation's armed attack.

 
At 30 September, 2010 18:30, Blogger Carl Herman said...

The preamble of the United Nations includes to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war… to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and… to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used…”

The UN purpose includes: "To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace..."

Article 2:
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter…

 
At 30 September, 2010 18:30, Blogger Carl Herman said...

Article 24: In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.

Article 25: The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.

Article 33:
1. The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
2. The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.

Article 37: Should the parties to a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 fail to settle it by the means indicated in that Article, they shall refer it to the Security Council.

 
At 30 September, 2010 18:31, Blogger Carl Herman said...

Article 39: The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Article 40: In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable.

Article 51: Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the judicial branch of the UN. Their definition of “armed attack” is by a nation’s government. Because the leadership of the CIA and FBI both reported that they had no evidence that the Afghan government had any role in the 9/11 terrorism, the US is unable to claim Article 51 protection for military action in Afghanistan. The legal classification of what happened on 9/11 is an act of terrorism, a criminal act, not an armed attack by another nation's government.

 
At 30 September, 2010 18:31, Blogger Carl Herman said...

The US is able to defend itself from any criminal act, of course, including an imminent threat, and does so daily, including using international cooperation to discover facts for the arrest and prosecution of the accused. The US use of force oversees could be a legal application of Article 51 if, and only if, the US could meet the burden of proof of an imminent threat that was not being responded to by the Security Council. To date, the US has not made such an argument.

American Daniel Webster helped create the legal definition of national self-defense in the Caroline Affair as "necessity of that self-defence is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." The US attack on Afghanistan came nearly a month after the 9/11 terrorism. Article 51 only allows self-defense until the Security Council takes action; which they did in two Resolutions beginning the day after 9/11 (1368 and 1373) claiming jurisdiction in the matter.

In conclusion, unless a nation can justify its military use as self-defense from armed attack from a nation’s government that is "instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation," all other acts of war are unlawful. The legal definition of “self-defense” ends when the attack terminates. In general legal definition, no party is allowed use of force under the justification of “self-defense” if the law can be applied for redress and remedy.

 
At 30 September, 2010 18:34, Blogger Carl Herman said...

And the article has the documentation: http://www.examiner.com/la-county-nonpartisan-in-los-angeles/us-war-laws-explained-why-afghanistan-and-iraq-wars-are-unlawful-how-to-end-them

This one has expert testimony and the link that all 27 UK Foreign Office lawyers agreed that war with Iraq was unlawful: http://www.examiner.com/la-county-nonpartisan-in-los-angeles/open-proposal-to-us-higher-education-end-unlawful-war-through-breakthrough-civic-education-2-of-4-1

 
At 30 September, 2010 18:45, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Man, Carl, you're still at it? You sure seem to have have a lot time on your hands!

Anyhow, back to the courts. You said none of made a ruling. Why haven't you, as a concerned American citizen, gone to court to seek such a ruling, especially since you claim it's an "open and shut" case in your favor?

 
At 30 September, 2010 18:48, Blogger Ian G. said...

Nobody cares, Carl.

 
At 30 September, 2010 19:22, Blogger Triterope said...

1 of 5:
And.

 
At 30 September, 2010 19:22, Blogger Triterope said...

2 of 5:
The.

 
At 30 September, 2010 19:22, Blogger Triterope said...

3 of 5:
Horse.

 
At 30 September, 2010 19:22, Blogger Triterope said...

4 of 5:
You.

 
At 30 September, 2010 19:22, Blogger Triterope said...

5 of 5:
Rode in on.

 
At 30 September, 2010 20:08, Blogger Billman said...

Ok Carl, I think you're saying the laws allow for the US to defend itself, but it doesn't allow for retliation? Am I getting that right?

 
At 30 September, 2010 20:14, Blogger Billman said...

And remember, the ICJ has already ruled that the US violated the law when it came to Nicaragua, and the US has refused to comply with that ruling. Apparently, noone in the international community has tried to press the issue, so what do you suggest we do to make the US comply with these rulings if it can be reasonable assumed that the same will happen if a judgement is made about Iraq?

 
At 30 September, 2010 21:04, Blogger Carl Herman said...

Billman:
You are correct; it’s similar to if you were attacked on the street. You can defend yourself; but once law enforcement with jurisdiction takes over you can’t “invade” the person’s neighborhood and retaliate for “pre-emptive self-defense.”

The US didn’t sign-on to ICJ, so the US only speaks-up when ICJ agrees with the US and ignores them when ICJ goes against US policy. Yes, nobody has challenged the US in the UN, even thought the US expressly violate UNSC resolutions.

I suggest having Americans stop unlawful wars through the responsibility the Founding Fathers admonished us with when they gave us a republic. Ben Franklin predicted the American people couldn’t do it; saying we’d devolve back to dictatorship in a generation or two:

http://www.examiner.com/la-county-nonpartisan-in-los-angeles/ending-us-wars-of-aggression-advice-from-our-forefathers

Americans would have to do so with education of the facts and demanding government under the law. A UN appeal to ICJ for legal opinion would help with education, but US political leadership would likely ignore the ruling.

We need a US war Truth Movement… or maybe you’d prefer a different name :)

As I wrote, we know “leadership” from both parties want these wars, with a faction also gunning for Iran. They always have their reasons, of course; they just aren’t telling us. That part I don’t know. As a teacher in government, I’m capable of showing whatever they’re up to, it’s with an unlawful war to do so at the cost of naïve and patriotic American soldiers’ lives.

 
At 30 September, 2010 21:40, Blogger Billman said...

Alright, I'm finally beginning to see where you're coming from. And, like I said, you're making a good point. Your delivery is alienating, though. We could've avoided a lot of this without the ad-homs.

But whatever. Now, what I feel you're really arguing is for the US to actually comply with the laws it says it agrees to with other nations. But as we've seen with Nicaragua, the US doesn't give a shit (and I would argue it hasn't since 1945 except when dealing with Russia, China, and other superpowers, but I am still a bit uneducated on this issue to stand by that assertion at this time) And there is enough to say that the War on Terror is pretty murky.

The thing I've been focusing on, is that our service members can't just do what you're saying they should, without some kind of ruling from somewhere.

 
At 30 September, 2010 21:46, Blogger Billman said...

The problem I'm having in totally agreeing with you (after setting aside the needless fighting here), is that when you apply this thinking to the Iraq war, it's very debatable and hard to reach a definative conclusion, especially when there's no ruling either way. Again, I've never studied this before this thread, since it all seems to be vague rhetoric... and it still does. I can't reach a conclusion about the legality of the war without more solid info.

 
At 30 September, 2010 22:11, Blogger Carl Herman said...

Billman:
Our men and women in uniform who took my “advice” would be threatened with court martial, for sure, and perhaps with treason. Lt. Ehren Watada refused deployment in Iraq with the argument of an unlawful engagement there, and the US refused the court martial in the end. Watada and his attorneys said they thought the government dropped the case because the trial would raise the evidence I explain and document in the article.

Bill, are you into a sport? If so, you know those rules. You appreciate an umpire in the game, but really you know what’s going on except in really unusual circumstances. War law is a pretty simple rule. When you know the rule, the current political “leadership” lies and unlawful war are just as obvious as if someone broke a major rule in the sport that your buddies and you all know as you’re watching a game. In both cases, when it’s right there in instant replay in front of all of your own eyes, you’re absolutely certain.

Is the “solid info” you reference just a court ruling, being certain about what the law says, or something else?

I won’t be responding until tomorrow.

 
At 30 September, 2010 23:03, Blogger Billman said...

Is the “solid info” you reference just a court ruling, being certain about what the law says, or something else?

Something that is quite clear that the course of action you are suggesting is what is required. So far, it just seems to be open to interpretation, and noone in the international community is pressing for what you're suggesting, nor is anyone in this country that has the power to do so pressing for it either. So, what am I missing here, if the powers that be aren't doing anything?

 
At 01 October, 2010 02:13, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Carl, you're mistaken. For example--and I quote:

"...The only type of war recognized by the United Nations as lawful is one fought in self-defense. The rules of warfare are not suspended, however, or otherwise rendered inapplicable merely because the grounds for fighting a particular war are unlawful. In an illegal war both the aggressor and other belligerents must still comport their behavior with the international customs, practices, and conventions of war. At the same time, some authority suggests that one belligerent may disregard certain rules of war in reprisal for its enemy's disregard of the same rules. Such reprisals have a tendency to spiral downward, however, with each act of retaliation straying further from the lawful norms of warfare."

Source: Lawful and Unlawful Wars--Rules of War.

Given the events of 11 September 2001, your argument is irrelevant.

 
At 01 October, 2010 03:37, Blogger ConsDemo said...

As I wrote, we know “leadership” from both parties want these wars, with a faction also gunning for Iran.

To the contrary, it's pretty clear Obama would rather be out of Afghanistan and I suspect many Republicans would as well. What's keeping US forces there is the fear that, absent western forces, Afghanistan would return to a Taliban-style government and become jihad central.

Since no court has ruled in favor of your argument, your claim the US effort is illegal is merely rhetoric not fact. It does pose the question though, suppose the worst case scenario does play out in Afghanistan, it becomes the base for the export of transnational terrorism, what steps can the US take to prevent a Mumbai style attack, another 9/11 or worse within the confines of the legal restrictions you claim?

 
At 01 October, 2010 03:53, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Carl's a 9-11 Truther, see here:

Well....... probably. But as deluded as Carl is on the U.S. legal system, I have to say that's a much more fair presentation than I was expecting. Here's one side, here's the other, what are the allegations, what are the responses. We could debate whether the set of links he presents is lopsided, but I don't see anything that would prohibit students from bringing in other information they find themselves.

BTW Carl -- res ipsa loquitur literally means "the thing speaks for itself". You are clearly very interested in the law and legal terminology. Why not just go to law school? You certainly look young enough from your photo, and in just 3 years you could actually understand the stuff you're trying to write about.

 
At 01 October, 2010 06:35, Blogger Triterope said...

You are clearly very interested in the law and legal terminology. Why not just go to law school?

Because that would require Carl to shut his piehole and actually listen to somebody else. That doesn't seem to be his skill set.

 
At 01 October, 2010 06:59, Blogger Carl Herman said...

Billman:
“The powers that be” (tptb) at “leadership” levels in both parties want the wars, and as I argue in Part 4 of “Open proposal to US higher education,” it appears from the documented history and present that corporate media cooperates with tptb in key policy areas of power and money, so literally hundreds of people like me have become independent journalists as “hobbies” in attempt to educate the American public.

I see the first step as having a critical mass of Americans understanding the facts to see for themselves (just as anyone can tell a pitch ten feet over the batter’s head is a ball) that they’re being played.

People have organized into groups and hold events; historically it seems to me similar to public movement that eventually ended the Vietnam War.

We’ll see. I do what I can and want to do in this “hobby.” This interchange with “Screw Loose Change” came from my attending a community event to honor victims of 9/11 and support soldiers and their families. My expression of support to soldiers and family is to inform them of war law so they have an informed consent. What they do then is up to them.

The bigger picture is out of anyone’s control; I suggest to my students that all we can do is live our lives to the highest expressions of virtue we can imagine (including having fun) and discovering together what develops.

 
At 01 October, 2010 07:00, Blogger Carl Herman said...

GuitarBill:
Thank you for admitting the wars are unlawful. That’s big of you. I appreciate it.

You do recognize that’s what the passage you quote is saying, yes?

But, dude, you are onto something at the core of the wars. “Leadership” of both parties understand war law; they choose to ignore it for some other game than “self-defense,” and our soldiers are their pawns in this game.

And once we establish unlawful war, then I suggest a Truth and Reconciliation process to exchange no prosecution for hearings to discover what their game really is. I think this is the only policy response that will work, as both parties’ leadership is deeply guilty of unlawful war and lies to start and cover it, they’ll fight to the death to avoid prosecution.

And if these fuckers choose to kill people like me in “pre-emptive” self-defense to avoid discovery, well, ok, I’m relatively powerless against that choice but I recommend they think long and hard of the value I represent in T&R as an elegant surrender.

More to ConsDemo, “Richard…” and even Triterope later.

 
At 01 October, 2010 07:28, Blogger Triterope said...

More to ConsDemo, “Richard…” and even Triterope later.

Don't bother, Carl. You've already written over 10,000 words on this page, and said nothing. It would be an act of supreme optimism on my part to give you a chance to illustrate that you have the tiniest clue about anything.

P.S. And the horse you rode in on.

 
At 01 October, 2010 10:44, Blogger Billman said...

Well Carl, I apologize for trolling at the beggining of this thread. Understand that we always get people who burst in here "storming the gates" with ad-hominems in the first post (rather like you did) who don't really attempt to actually explain their veiw, but just accuse us all of being "shills" or "ignorant" among many other things. It took an amazing amount of effort, and over 160 comments, but thanks for taking the time to finally get to it. I do believe you have a point that is worth considering so I will look in to it more. I hope that's worth something to you.

 
At 01 October, 2010 12:02, Blogger Triterope said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 01 October, 2010 12:07, Blogger Triterope said...

I do believe you have a point that is worth considering

Could you explain to me what it is? I'm genuinely curious what meaning you've found in all this.

 
At 01 October, 2010 13:48, Blogger Billman said...

Triterope, its more of an observation. I am uneducated when it comes to this legality of war stuff, because I think the existance of there being a concept such as a "legal" war is ridiculous...

But I was unaware of the US refusal to comply with some of the agreements we have with other countries concerning wars and stuff, and how nothing has ever come from that. Like Nicaraugua. It's just interesting, but at the same time, not surprising.

That's pretty much all I'm referring to. I want to look up more about that. I'm not saying Carl is right that there's some evil unlawful agenda or anything...

 
At 01 October, 2010 15:09, Blogger Triterope said...

I was unaware of the US refusal to comply with some of the agreements we have with other countries concerning wars and stuff

OK then. But I really hope you're basing that on something other than the banal clauses I cited in my "Ron Paul" post.

 
At 01 October, 2010 16:11, Blogger Billman said...

OK then. But I really hope you're basing that on something other than the banal clauses I cited in my "Ron Paul" post.

Heh, no. I'm basing this on my own objective assement of what I read following links from Carl's thing, as well as the stuff I found on my own.

 
At 01 October, 2010 18:18, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Could you explain to me what it is? I'm genuinely curious what meaning you've found in all this.

Same here. I couldn't take Carl very seriously or anyone else who makes the "I'm right because I say I am and if you disagree, you're an idiot" argument. However, if you think there is some credible basis for what he is claiming, I'd be interested in hearing it. I find it hard to believe the US (or any other country) is legally obliged to sit idly while country A actively fosters or even merely allows an terrorist organization to launch attacks on the US from country A's soil.

 
At 01 October, 2010 19:18, Blogger Billman said...

ConsDemo,

Nope, I didn't see anything like that in what he said either. Like I keep telling Carl, the War on Terror appears, to me at least, to be too debatable to legitimately have a definite opinion on wether it's illegal or not. And either way, I keep pointing out, the US could overule any such judgement anyway, or just outright ignore it (which I didn't know it had in the past until I looked up stuff for Carl's benefit). I'm just saying, Carl has a point that the US actually has had unlawful rulings against it (Nicaragua, I do believe).

But I don't believe we should only be engaged in self defense when terrorists threaten us. That's just, dangerous for everyone. Why not just let them develop nukes then? I mean, we shouldn't be allowed to do anything until they try to nuke us, according to Carl's ideals, and that doesn't sound smart to me.

 
At 01 October, 2010 21:19, Blogger Triterope said...

Carl has a point that the US actually has had unlawful rulings against it (Nicaragua, I do believe).

Uh-huh. And what became of that? The International Court of Justice ordered the United States of America to... write Nicaragua a check. Which was never written, because the U.S. used its position on the Security Council to veto any enforcement of the ruling.

Which is why this is all so pointless. Every illegal act, from genocide to spitting on the sidewalk, has a penalty associated with it. If the United States were ever found to conduct illegal war, they would, at worst, be forced to pay a penalty.

Carl has a magical belief in words. He thinks this is Civilization II, where triggering the "illegal war" event will magically remove all our cyan-colored mechanized infantry and AEGIS cruisers from the Middle East.

Sure, we can argue the "legality" of U.S. actions. But whatever you think of it, any enforcement is a long time coming, and probably won't amount to anything at all. The United Nations is ineffectual at best (cue the "Hans Brix" clip), and the entities we're at war with don't really fit the nation-by-nation lines upon which the U.N. was drawn.

I realize this is all very cynical. But such is the nature of international politics.

 
At 02 October, 2010 05:57, Blogger Pat said...

Well put, Trite. The only thing I would add is that Carl adds the usual paranoia of the conspiracy theorist to the stew with his mumblings about how if the government is going to murder him for his knowledge, so be it, but he really would be valuable at a Truth and Reconciliation hearing.

Of course, those of us who are sane know that all they really will do is yawn at his "proofs" and laugh at his calls for the T&R. Hence my point about his arguments amounting to nothing more than counting angels dancing on the head of a pin.

 
At 02 October, 2010 07:59, Blogger Billman said...

Uh-huh. And what became of that? The International Court of Justice ordered the United States of America to... write Nicaragua a check. Which was never written, because the U.S. used its position on the Security Council to veto any enforcement of the ruling.

Oh, I agree totally. You're saying everything I am, just you're more coherant at it. Heh.

Sorry if I'm sounding cryptic, it's just rare that someone actually posts something that's "new" to me.

 
At 02 October, 2010 12:35, Blogger Carl Herman said...

1 of 3:
Three of your quotes:

"To the contrary, it's pretty clear Obama would rather be out of Afghanistan and I suspect many Republicans would as well. What's keeping US forces there is the fear that, absent western forces, Afghanistan would return to a Taliban-style government and become jihad central."

"I couldn't take Carl very seriously or anyone else who makes the "I'm right because I say I am and if you disagree, you're an idiot" argument."

"Which is why this is all so pointless. Every illegal act, from genocide to spitting on the sidewalk, has a penalty associated with it. If the United States were ever found to conduct illegal war, they would, at worst, be forced to pay a penalty."

ConsDemo, Triterope, Pat, and Billman:

Uh-huh, ConsDemo. You look at your crystal ball, or Richard Gage’s balls, or whatever and have a nice conversation of speculation to justify American terrorism. According to your own belief in the US government report of what happened on 9/11, it was planned in “jihad central” Germany. Even the Taliban offered to arrest bin Laden upon US presentation of evidence he was involved in 9/11.

You spout the usual fascist excuse that our unlawful armed attack, invasion, and mass-murder is an Orwellian representation of justice under the law and American values.

You’re pathetic as an American, ConsDemo, and deserve dictatorship rather than the role of holding politicians within the law.

 
At 02 October, 2010 12:36, Blogger Carl Herman said...

2 of 3:
Go cry with your fellow weaklings that we can’t understand a rule or law, and refuse to engage in what I present as a professional in this area. Yes, you are an idiot (in the original Greek by definition) for refusing to engage and only spouting denial. All these comments show is your failure to explain war law with your only “defenses” as strawman arguments and ad hominem.

“Pay a penalty”?!? Billman, I hope at least you see this: the benefits include the end of the wars, the protection of our soldiers and their families, the end of our paying for these wars with our dollars and honor, an investigation to what the “leadership” is up to in engaging in these mass-murders, their removal from power, the reclamation of our national honor, the restoration of our Constitution, and that’s just in a few moment’s reflection.

You want to stop terrorism, “Screw Loose Change”? Fine. Then stop supporting the US being a terrorist. It’s you, war-mongers among you, who back the murder of US soldiers through unlawful war and then pretending nothing can be done to stop it. ConsDemo, Triterope, Pat and others are among the terrorists who reject government under the law and propagandize for the most dangerous military in world history to attack and invade other nations rather than act within the law.

US “leadership” and their propagandists rejected and violated UNSC resolutions of cooperation in Afghanistan when the entire world was on our side after 9/11 and terrorists were marginalized to a targeted class.

US “leadership” and their propagandists rejected and violated UNSC resolution of ceasefire in Iraq while Saddam was searched for the chemical and biological weapons our US NIE of October 2002 definitively claimed as no threat to our national security.

US “leadership” and their propagandists argue for continued unlawful war in Afghanistan to “protect us” from terrorism as war-pimps like you argue for whiny non-action. YOU are among the terrorists in these wars for empire.

Americans have a constitution for justice under the law. You reject it. You prefer lawless wars.

 
At 02 October, 2010 12:37, Blogger Carl Herman said...

3 of 3:
Take a long look in that mirror, Scrooges. Your openings for a “Scrooge conversion” are open, but the chains you make are your responsibility to unmake.

What do you think, Billman? Does this help you see the difference between being an American acting under the law, and the fascists surrendering understanding of the law to our “leaders” (Fuhrer in German) and demanding soldiers acting in good faith, like you, to “just follow orders”?

Does it make any sense to train soldiers, arm them, and deploy them when they’re intentionally not trained to know when war is and is not lawful?

Wouldn’t an empire do exactly what ConsDemo do and propagandize to turn Americans from vigilant protectors of justice under laws we are responsible to understand into mindless sycophants obeying “leadership” without thought?

Choose: understand basic laws, like war law, and demand your flag, your honor, and your money act with its power under the law, OR surrender to dictator-serving terrorists like ConsDemo, Triterope and Pat.

Does that help in what you are absolutely correct in doing, Billman, your own assessment?

If you stand with millions of Americans and me, your “friends” like ConsDemo will attack you, but you will have the opportunity to stand with the values of the Founding Fathers.

 
At 02 October, 2010 12:38, Blogger Carl Herman said...

2a of 3:
Go cry with your fellow weaklings that we can’t understand a rule or law, and refuse to engage in what I present as a professional in this area. Yes, you are an idiot (in the original Greek by definition) for refusing to engage and only spouting denial. All these comments show is your failure to explain war law with your only “defenses” as strawman arguments and ad hominem.

“Pay a penalty”?!? Billman, I hope at least you see this: the benefits include the end of the wars, the protection of our soldiers and their families, the end of our paying for these wars with our dollars and honor, an investigation to what the “leadership” is up to in engaging in these mass-murders, their removal from power, the reclamation of our national honor, the restoration of our Constitution, and that’s just in a few moment’s reflection.

You want to stop terrorism, “Screw Loose Change”? Fine. Then stop supporting the US being a terrorist. It’s you, war-mongers among you, who back the murder of US soldiers through unlawful war and then pretending nothing can be done to stop it. ConsDemo, Triterope, Pat and others are among the terrorists who reject government under the law and propagandize for the most dangerous military in world history to attack and invade other nations rather than act within the law.
US “leadership” and their propagandists rejected and violated UNSC resolutions of cooperation in Afghanistan when the entire world was on our side after 9/11 and terrorists were marginalized to a targeted class.

US “leadership” and their propagandists rejected and violated UNSC resolution of ceasefire in Iraq while Saddam was searched for the chemical and biological weapons our US NIE of October 2002 definitively claimed as no threat to our national security.

 
At 02 October, 2010 12:39, Blogger Carl Herman said...

2b of 3:
(oops, 2 was too long to post).

US “leadership” and their propagandists argue for continued unlawful war in Afghanistan to “protect us” from terrorism as war-pimps like you argue for whiny non-action. YOU are among the terrorists in these wars for empire.

Americans have a constitution for justice under the law. You reject it. You prefer lawless wars.

 
At 02 October, 2010 12:41, Blogger Carl Herman said...

2a of 3:
Go cry with your fellow weaklings that we can’t understand a rule or law, and refuse to engage in what I present as a professional in this area. Yes, you are an idiot (in the original Greek by definition) for refusing to engage and only spouting denial. All these comments show is your failure to explain war law with your only “defenses” as strawman arguments and ad hominem.

“Pay a penalty”?!? Billman, I hope at least you see this: the benefits include the end of the wars, the protection of our soldiers and their families, the end of our paying for these wars with our dollars and honor, an investigation to what the “leadership” is up to in engaging in these mass-murders, their removal from power, the reclamation of our national honor, the restoration of our Constitution, and that’s just in a few moment’s reflection.

You want to stop terrorism, “Scr** Loose Change”? Fine. Then stop supporting the US being a terrorist. It’s you, war-mongers among you, who back the murder of US soldiers through unlawful war and then pretending nothing can be done to stop it. ConsDemo, Triterope, Pat and others are among the terrorists who reject government under the law and propagandize for the most dangerous military in world history to attack and invade other nations rather than act within the law.

US “leadership” and their propagandists rejected and violated UNSC resolutions of cooperation in Afghanistan when the entire world was on our side after 9/11 and terrorists were marginalized to a targeted class.

US “leadership” and their propagandists rejected and violated UNSC resolution of ceasefire in Iraq while Saddam was searched for the chemical and biological weapons our US NIE of October 2002 definitively claimed as no threat to our national security.

 
At 02 October, 2010 12:45, Blogger Carl Herman said...

You're not allowed to write, "Scre*" on your own blog, apparently.

Well, Pat, given you've ignored two invitations, I assume you're not proud enough of your website to allow me to reprint the comments.

Not a problem if you don't want to make a comment to appear with my review of your website. I'll just write a review, just like you did for me.

Any individuals willing? I'm also willing to take your statements and include them in an article.

You all have my permission to take any and all of my comments for "Fair Use" educational reprint.

 
At 02 October, 2010 12:47, Blogger Carl Herman said...

2a of 3:
Go cry with your fellow weaklings that we can’t understand a rule or law, and refuse to engage in what I present as a professional in this area. Yes, you are an idiot (in the original Greek by definition) for refusing to engage and only spouting denial. All these comments show is your failure to explain war law with your only “defenses” as strawman arguments and ad hominem.

“Pay a penalty”?!? Billman, I hope at least you see this: the benefits include the end of the wars, the protection of our soldiers and their families, the end of our paying for these wars with our dollars and honor, an investigation to what the “leadership” is up to in engaging in these mass-murders, their removal from power, the reclamation of our national honor, the restoration of our Constitution, and that’s just in a few moment’s reflection.

You want to stop terrorism, “Sc*** rew Loose Change”? Fine. Then stop supporting the US being a terrorist. It’s you, war-mongers among you, who back the murder of US soldiers through unlawful war and then pretending nothing can be done to stop it. ConsDemo, Triterope, Pat and others are among the terrorists who reject government under the law and propagandize for the most dangerous military in world history to attack and invade other nations rather than act within the law.

US “leadership” and their propagandists rejected and violated UNSC resolutions of cooperation in Afghanistan when the entire world was on our side after 9/11 and terrorists were marginalized to a targeted class.

US “leadership” and their propagandists rejected and violated UNSC resolution of ceasefire in Iraq while Saddam was searched for the chemical and biological weapons our US NIE of October 2002 definitively claimed as no threat to our national security.

 
At 02 October, 2010 12:49, Blogger Carl Herman said...

2aa of 3:
Go cry with your fellow weaklings that we can’t understand a rule or law, and refuse to engage in what I present as a professional in this area. Yes, you are an idiot (in the original Greek by definition) for refusing to engage and only spouting denial. All these comments show is your failure to explain war law with your only “defenses” as strawman arguments and ad hominem.

“Pay a penalty”?!? Billman, I hope at least you see this: the benefits include the end of the wars, the protection of our soldiers and their families, the end of our paying for these wars with our dollars and honor, an investigation to what the “leadership” is up to in engaging in these mass-murders, their removal from power, the reclamation of our national honor, the restoration of our Constitution, and that’s just in a few moment’s reflection.

 
At 02 October, 2010 12:50, Blogger Carl Herman said...

2ab of 3:
You want to stop terrorism, “Sc*** Loo** Change”? Fine. Then stop supporting the US being a terrorist. It’s you, war-mongers among you, who back the murder of US soldiers through unlawful war and then pretending nothing can be done to stop it. ConsDemo, Triterope, Pat and others are among the terrorists who reject government under the law and propagandize for the most dangerous military in world history to attack and invade other nations rather than act within the law.

US “leadership” and their propagandists rejected and violated UNSC resolutions of cooperation in Afghanistan when the entire world was on our side after 9/11 and terrorists were marginalized to a targeted class.

US “leadership” and their propagandists rejected and violated UNSC resolution of ceasefire in Iraq while Saddam was searched for the chemical and biological weapons our US NIE of October 2002 definitively claimed as no threat to our national security.

 
At 02 October, 2010 15:21, Blogger Triterope said...

Hence my point about his arguments amounting to nothing more than counting angels dancing on the head of a pin.

Yeah, except that Carl doesn't even really want to do that. He wants to tell you the answer is seven, and if you disagree you're a angel-hating fascist who can't count. And it'll take him three posts to say that.

And don't get me wrong, counting angels can be a valuable exercise. I wish there was more national debate about how our government handled certain aspects of its military response to 9/11. There are valid arguments pro and con things like waterboarding, Guantanamo, access to the American legal system, etc. But that's a thread for another day.

Carl adds the usual paranoia of the conspiracy theorist to the stew

True. But I think there's more to it than the usual conspiracy-mindedness. Carl's worldview contains a real element of sociopathy.

In all of his examples, anything that offends him can be met with the most extreme response imaginable. But anyone else acting in their own interests can expect a harangue from Carl about what they can "legally" do.

It's okay to murder people who threaten your pet, but it's not OK to have a military response to a massive terrorist attack that kills 3000 civilians. That's the law on Planet Carl.

 
At 02 October, 2010 15:22, Blogger Triterope said...

Oh, I agree totally. You're saying everything I am, just you're more coherant at it. Heh.

Don't sell yourself short, my friend. Your comments are always insightful, and I enjoy reading them. Anyway, I guess we're on the same page at this point.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home