2 minutes to Midnight

I’ve linked to an important article below. For the past decade generals and admirals have been speaking about usable nuclear weapons. We now have them.

Along with the new W-76 warhead which the article discusses, we also have B-61 air dropped nuclear bombs that have low yield warheads.

What this article leaves out, and what makes this issue more important and scarier, is that the W-76, which are carried on our subs, were refitted a few years ago with a new superfuze, making them as accurate as the land based W88 warheads – meaning they can be used against Russia and Chinese missile silos and command and control centers.

US submarines can now launch accurate first strike attacks with the lower payload warhead. Attacks from submarines would only take 10 or 15 minutes in total, Russia and China would have nearly no time to react. So the US has the ability now to destroy Russia or China’s land based nuclear missile fleet with the US submarine force, which would leave the US land and air based nuclear force intact. With their land based nuclear forces destroyed Russia or China would be forced to rely on launching a retaliatory attack from their submarines with warheads that are less accurate and have a high yield, meaning US cities and populations centers would be destroyed and effected. These attacks would not be able to destroy the US land based missile force, at least with any certainty, and the Russians and Chinese would fear additional retaliation from the US land based ICBMs ensuring destruction of their societies. The Russians and Chinese now have to seriously consider their position and, potentially, give up their no first use doctrine. The US does not and never had a no first use policy.

This is very dangerous.

This is incredibly dangerous.

https://consortiumnews.com/2019/02/14/the-most-dangerous-weapon-ever-rolls-off-the-nuclear-assembly-line/

The colors on the map…

An important read is attached to help understand the structure of decision making in Washington, DC; decision making that has killed millions overseas and destroyed entire nations in the Middle East.

When interviewed about such things, I’ve often described the maturity of national security decision making to nothing more than a game of Risk. Whether it be Republican or Democratic administrations the purposes of the policies enacted, murderous and barbarous when realized in person, are nothing more than to make the countries on a map the same color as the US and its allies. So, as in the case described by Lazare in the attached essay, to make Syria blue, to dis-align it from Iran (or Russia as is argued today), is the purpose in itself, it is the end that justifies all those bloody means.

Lazare’s essay is incredibly instructive and the cited memo, written by James Rubin to Hilary Clinton in April 2012, shows such thinking and decision making in its actual form. This is the true embodiment of what leads to 500,000 dead in Syria, 1 million dead in Iraq, unknown numbers of dead in Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan and throughout Africa. For my friends who still are in the military or government, or for their families, this is what has destroyed so many lives not just abroad, but also here at home – how many of us have followed such vainglorious and cavalier leadership and how many of us now know the true costs of such “service”? How many still go along with thoughts that the leadership of these wars might get better, the realities and circumstances of the wars may change, or that the professionalism of military, foreign or civil service absolves the necessity of understanding clearly, and acknowledging, the masters being served.

The first paragraph of Rubin’s memo to Clinton lays plain the convoluted, arrogant and ignorant thinking of those in DC power: “The best way to help Israel deal with Iran’s growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad.”

From this opening Rubin lays down rationale that makes sense only when understood in what Washington, DC national security elites and their politician benefactors believe to be tangible goals; goals as have been passed onto them by previous generations and goals that are as if dreamt up by international relations graduate students in Kissinger-esque fever dreams. Goals that prove ephemeral in outcomes which can be controlled and are nearly always, inevitably, hopeless and damned for those upon who they bear.

Evidence of this simple, yet absurd, thought has been common throughout the war in Syria, for example see Michael Vickers’ Washington Post op-Ed in August 2017 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-trump-administration-should-not-give-up-on-removing-assad-in-syria/2017/07/23/a7073878-6d59-11e7-96ab-5f38140b38cc_story.html?utm_term=.6255bc9ca7e5

or the examples laid out in Lazare’s essay. Similar clear and inculpatory evidence is also easily and readily available for our wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen etc.

In moments as of now I am reminded of Chaplin’s “The Great Dictator” dictum of not to give our lives to brutes or to those machine men with their machine minds….I did so for a long time, such a regret and a shame I’ll never get past. What I can do, and how can I not, is to offer what I know, not just from study and observation, but from my years at multiple levels of military, government and congressional roles.

The importance now is to pass on this information, to educate in order to embolden our society and population to the whims and fantasies of such men and women as Rubin and Clinton. For now we have the most malleable and mercurial President we have had in modern memory (and maybe in our country’s total existence) and I can tell you with great certainty that more wars will occur and that the simplemindedness and arrogance shown by Rubin and Clinton extends to both sides of the political aisle. It is only a matter of time until nuclear weapons will be cast into fiery apocalyptic use, bringing forth our demise as a species along with this beautiful planet, just to preserve or improve the color shadings of the map in the heads of the ruling neoconservatives or liberal interventionists.

https://consortiumnews.com/2019/01/13/the-memo-that-helped-kill-a-half-million-people-in-syria/

Tulsi Gabbard’s 2020 run

I am very excited #TulsiGabbard has announced her run for #2020. Tulsi Gabbard is arguably the strongest progressive that has run in modern memory – Dennis Kucinich is another that comes to mind.

Her anti-war and anti-militarism stances will be a very welcome addition to the Democratic primaries, as will her domestic polices.

She’s not the Green or the Socialist I want, but politics is the art of the possible and I believe a strong and prominent run by Gabbard will educate a large part of our population to what is possible for our society and world and possibly pull the Democratic Party platform towards something resembling the platform of FDR or Henry Wallace.

If Gabbard is shut out by the governing corporate interests of the Democratic Party my hope is that will cause a stronger multi party system, or at least something more democratic than the corrupt and fraudulent two party system we have now.

As has been said so well by others, we can neither fetishize or reject our elections and voting. Only strong and direct action against the government will stop our wars, save the planet and bring about a just and equitable society. However, rejecting outright the politics of now leads us no where. There are many calls for an overthrow of the system, something I am in favor of, however that overthrow must come peaceably and nonviolently – I have taken part in the violent change and administration of revolutionary democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan and with the greatest certainty I can tell you that only the naive believe that violence helps anyone but the powerful and wealthy – it is always the weak, the poor, the voiceless that suffer and suffer horribly.

We must find leaders for the political moment – like Tulsi Gabbard – while continuing to advance with great nonviolent force ideas, principles and actions that will bring about the radical change we need to survive what the present political system provides.E1DA5683-DA3B-4BDF-8F6D-B3E78074447B.jpeg357ec25d-17b7-486d-9ce5-96e3a634b76b

Asylum for Julian Assange

I was very pleased and proud to be included on this call for asylum for Julian Assange by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS – I am an associate member).

VIPS Plead for Humanitarian Asylum for Julian Assange

Memorandum for: The US Embassies of Ecuador and the United Kingdom, and the U.S. State Department

From: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

Subject: Humanitarian Asylum for Julian Assange

For six years, WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange has been effectively imprisoned without charges at Ecuador’s London embassy. In that time, two international courts and dozens of respected legal and human rights organizations have decried actions of the UK, US and Swedish governments that confine the journalist in what now amounts to torturous isolation, deprived of space, sunlight, visitors, communication with the outside and necessary medical care.

The catalyst was an arcane effort by the Swedish government to extradite Assange for questioning about claims of sexual improprieties.1 The UK government subsequently arrested Assange and released him on bail.2 Ecuador granted Assange asylum at its embassy based on concerns he could be extradited to the US where he would not receive a fair trial and could receive a death sentence.3 (Former Obama DOJ spokesperson Matthew Miller has acknowledged that US officials intended to arrest Julian Assange but decided against it because of the expected impacts on press freedom.)4

The UK government threatens to arrest Assange if he leaves the embassy for “not surrendering at bail” and refuses to rule out extradition to the US.5 Under a new president, Ecuador has cut off Assange’s communications with the outside world.

Experts Criticize Treatment of Assange

In June, 2014, The National Lawyers Guild and 59 human rights and legal organizations petitioned the United Nations to act on violations of Assange’s “fundamental human rights.” In addition, “33 union, human rights, media and civil society organizations” petitioned the Human Rights Commission in Geneva on behalf of freedom for Assange. Reports submitted by the groups identified “numerous systematic deficiencies in Swedish pre-trial procedures like the routine placement of persons who have not been charged with any crime in indefinite, isolated, or unexplained pre-charge detention.”6

In February 2016, the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) concluded that Assange’s situation constitutes “arbitrary detention” and violates both the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.7 Assange’s Swedish lawyer, Per Samuelson, told The Guardian, 4 Feb 2016, “If he is regarded as detained, that means he has served his time, so I see no other option for Sweden but to close the case.”8

Another year would pass, however, before Sweden dropped its investigation, after finally consenting to interview Assange at the embassy.9 Recently obtained emails show that Sweden would have dropped the case years earlier but for pressure from UK authorities.10 In summary, Assange has been confined for six years over allegations that never resulted in charges, much less a criminal conviction.

On July 12, 2018, the Organization of American States’ (OAS) Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) sent out a ruling11 that was virtually unnoticed by US news media. The IACHR found “it is the duty of nations to allow for the passage of successful asylum seekers from embassies to the mainland territory of the state that has granted an individual asylum.”

For Julian Assange, this would mean that, according to the Court’s decision, Britain has a legal obligation to allow Julian Assange to exit the Ecuadorian Embassy in London in peace and allow for his safe transit to an airport from which he would be able to fly to Ecuador, the country that has granted Assange asylum and where he now also holds formal citizenship12

“[I]t is imperative,” the ruling states, “that Assange is allowed to make the safe passage to Ecuador demanded by the Court as his physical and mental health conditions have been described as deteriorating rapidly. If, nevertheless, UK authorities insist on arresting Assange, “the British government will have wantonly failed to uphold Assange’s rights as a legitimate receiver of asylum by Ecuador.”13

The IACHR ruling suggests further that outright abuses occurred when Ecuador removed security assigned for Assange;14 when the UK rejected Ecuador’s request for safe passage of Assange to Ecuador15; and when the US obstructed efforts to end Assange’s virtual imprisonment.16

Mistaken Assumptions Underlie Government Policies

President Trump’s Attorney General Jeff Sessions hinted at a crackdown on the press.17 Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called Wikileaks a “non-state, hostile intelligence service” that is often “abetted by state actors like Russia.”18 Pompeo laments the “hero worship” of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and suggests harsh measures would prevent future “leaks” of classified information. But, it is government persecution, not the lack of it, that gives truth-tellers hero status. Also, what truly upsets senior intelligence officials is not (frequently condoned) “leaking” but blowing the whistle on government wrongdoing.

Harsh measures do not deter individuals with strong moral convictions from whistleblowing. Instead, these motivate potential whistleblowers to find more creative avenues for disclosure. Edward Snowden, for example, was well aware of the US government’s brutality toward Thomas Drake, who used “official channels” to express concerns about the legality of NSA surveillance activities. Drake’s experience, Snowden says, were his inspiration. “It’s fair to say,” Snowden said, “if there hadn’t been a Thomas Drake, there couldn’t have been an Edward Snowden.”19

Similarly, despite the bullying of Julian Assange, new websites have appeared that draw inspiration from WikiLeaks.20Should the US take custody of Assange and prosecute him like Drake, they could find success elusive in the opinion of Harvard Law professor Jack Goldsmith.

“The most relevant law, the Espionage Act, is famously overbroad and thus an uncertain basis for prosecution,” observed Goldsmith. “This is one reason the government has never successfully prosecuted a member of the media for soliciting or publishing classified information. Nor has the government ever successfully prosecuted a non-media organization for solicitation or receipt of classified information.”21

“Failing in the effort would make the United States look even more ineffectual than it does as a result of the leaks,” Goldsmith concluded.

A successful prosecution could have worse consequences. With little that distinguishes Wikileaks’ activities from those of mainstream news gatherers22, a dangerous legal precedent would be established. Journalists employed by major newspapers that also published government secrets, including some of the same secrets published by Wikileaks, could be imprisoned by any administration with animosity toward the press. The impacts of prosecuting Assange would ripple around the world as officials in other governments followed the most powerful nation’s example. With no means of holding governments accountable, despotism would proliferate, triggering cascading crises and worldwide disruption.

UN human rights expert Alfred de Zayas observes that “Order depends on the consistent and uniform application of international law.”23

Governments could simply ignore the court directives on Assange’s asylum rights; but that too carries risks, undermining efforts by those countries to support dissidents of their choosing. Potentially, in the future, the diplomatic privileges of UK, US and Ecuadorian diplomats could also come under assault.

A Fork in the Road

Collectively, the governments of Sweden, the UK, the US, Ecuador (recently) and, through its silence, Assange’s home country of Australia have imposed six years of suffering on Assange and possibly life-long damage to his health. With their proxies, they pound Assange with threats, ad hominem attacks and misleading statements. He cannot defend himself because the government of Ecuador terminated his access to communications systems. This may have a temporary effect of confusing the public; but as more legal experts and human rights authorities hazard coming to his defense, the public may recognize these assaults as the desperate flailings of governments that lack credible defenses for their actions.

Public dissatisfaction with governments worldwide is currently high, as evidenced by numerous massive street protests, passages of referendums against centralized power, and wide-spread elections of anti-establishment candidates. Any additional erosion of public support risks a tipping point with unforeseeable consequences. Brutality against Julian Assange, particularly as his health declines, can only increase his stature as a journalist, enshrine his popular global status as a martyr for freedom, and effectively undermine support for his persecutors.

The involved governments have arrived at a fork in the road. They can continue the persecution of Assange, risking catastrophe for diminishing returns. Or, they can let Assange proceed to Ecuador, or home to Australia if it provides suitable guarantees,24 and boost their public standing as self-described supporters of human rights, the rule of law, and a free press.

We the undersigned members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity urge all governments to honor the OHCHR and IACHR directives with respect to Julian Assange and other asylum seekers.

For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

William Binney, Technical Director, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)

Richard H. Black, Senator of Virginia, 13th District; Colonel US Army (ret.); Former Chief, Criminal Law Division, Office of the Judge Advocate General, the Pentagon (associate VIPS)

Marshall Carter-Tripp, Foreign Service Officer (ret.) and Division Director, State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research

Bogdan Dzakovic,  former Team Leader of Federal Air Marshals and Red Team, FAA Security (ret.) (associate VIPS)

Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)

Mike Gravel, former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence  Service; special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator

  Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan (associate VIPS)

Larry C. Johnson, former CIA and State Department Counter Terrorism officer.

Michael S. Kearns, Captain, USAF (ret); Wing Commander, RAAF (ret); Intelligence Officer and Master SERE Instructor

John Kiriakou, Former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former senior investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee

Karen Kwiatkowski, former Lt. Col., US Air Force (ret.), at Office of Secretary of Defense watching the manufacture of lies on Iraq, 2001-2003?

Linda Lewis, WMD preparedness policy analyst, USDA (ret.) (associate VIPS)

Edward Loomis, NSA, Cryptologic Computer Scientist (ret.)

Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)

Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Near East, CIA and National Intelligence Council (ret.)

Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)

Coleen Rowley, FBI Special Agent and former Minneapolis Division Legal Counsel (ret.)

Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA

Sarah G. Wilton, Intelligence Officer, DIA (ret.); Commander, US Naval Reserve (ret.)

Robert Wing, former Foreign Service Officer (associate VIPS)

Ann Wright, Col., US Army (ret.); Foreign Service Officer (resigned)

Endnotes

1 Marchand & Schaus. European Court of Human Rights. 2016. http://www.ecchr.eu Accessed 2 Aug 2018.

2 BBC News. “Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy: Timeline.” 30 Jul 2018. http://www.bbc.com Accessed 2 Aug 2018.

3 Wallace, Arturo. “Julian Assange: Why Ecuador is offering asylum.” BBC News, 16 Aug 2012.

4 Greenberg, Andy. “The US Charging Julian Assange Could Put Press Freedom on Trial.” Wired, 20 Apr 2017.

5 The Telegraph. “Arrest warrant for Julian Assange still valid.” 6 Feb 2018

6 National Lawyers Guild. “NLG and Nearly 60 International Organizations Urge UN to Remedy Human Rights Violations in Pre-Charge Detention of Julian Assange.” 19 Jun 2014

7 United Nations. UN News, 5 Feb 2016.

8 Addley, Bowcott, Elgot, Farrell & Crouch. “Julian Assange is in arbitrary detention, UN panel finds.”

The Guardian. 4 Feb 2016

9 BBC News. “Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy: Timeline.” 30 Jul 2018. http://www.bbc.com Accessed 2 Aug 2018.

10 Bowcott & MacAskill.“Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013, CPS emails show.” The Guardian,11 Feb 2018.

11 Inter-American Court of Human Right. “Advisory Opinion on the institution of asylum and its recognition as a human right in the inter-american system of protection.” [press release] 12 Jul 2018. http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/comunicados/cp_28_18_eng.pdf

12 Garrie, Adam. “Julian Assange Scores Major Legal Victory as Court Orders Safe Passage of Wikileaks Founder Out of Embassy.” EurasiaFuture, 13 Jul 2018.

13 Ibid.

14 “Ecuador orders withdrawal of extra Assange security from embassy in London.” Reuters, 7 May 2018

15 Saul, Heather. “Julian Assange: British Government denies Ecuadorian request for ‘safe passage’ to get Wikileaks founder to a hospital.” The Independent, 15 Oct 2015.

16 Solomon, John. “How Comey Intervened To Kill Wikileaks’ Immunity Deal.” The Hill, 25 Jun 2018.

17 Ainsley, Julia Edwards. “Trump administration goes on attack against leakers, journalists.” Reuters. 4 Aug 2017

18 Milman, Oliver. “Trump CIA director blames ‘worship of Edward Snowden’ for rise in leaks.” The Guardian, 24 June 2017.

19 AJ Plus. “Exclusive: Edward Snowden on the man who inspired his work.” (video) 5 Aug 2015.

20 Reitman, Rainey. “Will the rise of WikiLeaks competitors make whistleblowing resistant to censorship?” Electronic Frontier Foundation. 6 Feb 2011.

21 Goldsmith, Jack. “Why the U.S. shouldn’t try Julian Assange.” Washington Post, 11 Feb 2011.

22 ”Quite simply, our motive is identical to that claimed by the New York Times and The Post — to publish newsworthy content,” Assange wrote in a recent op-ed in The Washington Post. “Consistent with the U.S. Constitution, we publish material that we can confirm to be true irrespective of whether sources came by that truth legally or have the right to release it to the media. And we strive to mitigate legitimate concerns, for example by using redaction to protect the identities of at-risk intelligence agents” (CNN, 21 May 2017).

23 UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. “UN rights expert urges the UK and Sweden to give good example to the world and implement the Assange ruling.” 15 Feb 2016. Retrieved on 1 Aug 2018 from http://www.ohchr.org.

24 Murdock, Jason. WikiLeaks: Australia has ‘obligation’ to protect Julian Assange, Lawyer says.” Newsweek. 1 Aug 2018.

Impeach the President for War-Making: Support H. Res. 922

Update: You can quickly and easily send a letter asking your representative in the House to support H. Res 922 by visiting The Action Network. Please do so, it will help.

Impeaching the President for starting wars without the consent of Congress is the central tenet of House Resolution 922, which is co-sponsored by Representatives Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) and Walter Jones (R-NC).

I am very privileged to help introduce H. Res. 922 this Wednesday, July 18, along with Representatives Gabbard and Jones, and constitutional law expert Bruce Fein, at the US Capitol (11am, House Triangle). H. Res. 922 defines presidential wars not declared by Congress, to includes wars of co-belligerancy, such as the United States role in the atrocities in Yemen, as impeachable offenses.

H. Res. 922 provides a framework for the House of Representatives to assert its duty and responsibility in US war-making, as obligated by the US Constitution, by providing definitions and context to Article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution (the declare war clause), as well as labeling presidential indifference to, neglect of and subversion against Congress’ role, and by extension the public’s will, in war-making “a high crime and misdemeanor”. This latter purpose of H. Res. 922 provides the justification for impeachment of a president for war-making, which, regardless of political party, has proven to be a constant, murderous and unchecked facet of our imperial presidents.

Will H. Res. 922 directly end war? No. However, it is an extremely valuable and non-partisan effort to put a check on current imperial presidential powers and to demonstrate a desire for accountability for the daily and unending madness and cruelty of US wars. H. Res. 922 should be viewed as part of a larger and broader campaign to end the wars we wage both abroad and at home (and if you don’t understand how the wars overseas are directly tied into the wars here at home, then please read how the US military is prepared to jail 20,000 children on US soil). Such a campaign necessarily requires legislative and political efforts, but must also include direct action, resistance, education and alternatives to the yearly one trillion dollar military-industrial complex.

Whatever assistance you and your organizations can provide in support of this resolution will be extremely helpful. Please share widely this announcement with your friends, family, organizations, networks, readers, listeners, followers, etc, and please also directly contact your representatives in the House and ask them to co-sponsor H. Res. 922.

All press are welcome on Wednesday and press inquiries can be directed to Allison Tucker in Congressman Jone’s office (202-225-3415) and Lauren McIlvaine in Congresswoman Gabbard’s office (202-225-4906). I have pasted below the text of the resolution.

Wage Peace.

115th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. RES. 922

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

June 6, 2018

(for himself and Ms. Gabbard) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Defining presidential wars not declared by Congress under Article I, section 8, clause 11 (Declare War Clause) as impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors within the meaning of Article II, section 4 of the Constitution and defining the meanings of war and cobelligerency for purposes of the Declare War Clause and Impeachment provisions.

Whereas presidential wars not declared by Congress under Article I, section 8, clause 11 are the most flagrant and dangerous of presidential usurpations;

Whereas President George Washington, who had presided over the Constitutional Convention and supported the Declare War Clause, elaborated during his service in office: The Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress; therefore, no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they have deliberated on the subject and authorized such a measure.;

Whereas presidential wars saddle the people with multi-trillion dollar indebtedness, diverts national genius from production to destruction, cripples liberty, silences the law, awakens enemies, and provokes blowback in the United States;

Whereas the absence of impeachment standards creates an appearance that impeachment is a partisan exercise, which undermines its legitimacy and deters its use;

Whereas the absence of definitions of war and co-belligerency for purposes of the Declare War Clause undermines its enforcement through the impeachment process or otherwise;

Whereas the law should warn before it strikes;

Whereas Article I, section 2, clause 5 provides that, The House of Representatives … shall have the sole Power of Impeachment;

Whereas the impeachment power of the House of Representatives is a cornerstone safeguard against Presidential tyranny;

Whereas the past neglect of the House of Representatives to use the impeachment power against Presidential usurpations and lawlessness has concentrated alarming power in the executive branch, crippled liberty, undermined transparency, and encouraged Presidents to further aggrandizements;

Whereas Article II, section 4 of the Constitution provides that, The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors;

Whereas the Constitutional Convention rejected neglect of duty or maladministration as impeachment standards in favor of high crimes and misdemeanors because the former terms were too broad;

Whereas impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors has an objective meaning based on the intent of the Constitution’s framers and British impeachment precedents;

Whereas Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 65 explained that impeachable offenses proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself;

Whereas the House of Representatives has voted articles of impeachment against two Presidents, one Cabinet officer, one Senator, one Supreme Court Justice, and 14 Federal judges without providing a general standard for defining an impeachable offense; and

Whereas every participant in the drafting, debating, and ratifying of the Constitution understood that the Declare War Clause prohibited presidential wars and entrusted exclusively to Congress the solemn responsibility for deciding whether the Nation should cross the Rubicon from a state of peace to a state of war: Now, therefore, be it

1.

Defining Presidential wars as impeachable offenses

The House of Representatives declares the following Presidential actions shall constitute impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors within the meaning of Article II, section 4, which will cause the House to vote an article or articles of impeachment to send to the Senate for trial:

  • Initiating wars against state or non-state actors without prior congressional declarations under Article I, section 8, clause 11 (Declare War Clause) by which Congress itself decides to take the United States from a condition of peace to a condition of war against an identified enemy.
2.

Defining presidential wars

Nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted to prohibit the President from responding with proportionate military force in the exercise of national self-defense to actual or imminent aggression or a declaration of war against the United States.

3.

Co-belligerncy

This resolution shall be interpreted to prohibit the President from making the United States a co-belligerent in an ongoing war without a congressional declaration under the Declare War Clause. For purposes of this section, the United States becomes a co-belligerent if it systematically or substantially supplies war materials, military troops, trainers, or advisers, military intelligence, financial support or their equivalent in association, cooperation, assistance, or common cause with another belligerent.

4.

Non-exclusivity

This Resolution shall not be interpreted to preclude the House of Representatives from concluding that other presidential actions constitute impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors within the meaning of Article II, section 4 either by supplemental resolutions or by ad hoc determinations.

5.

Effective date

This Resolution shall take effect upon passage by the House of Representatives.

 

 

Moral Injury 24 x 7

From Mike Hastie, a combat medic in the United States War against Vietnam:

Three weeks ago, I had a personal friend commit suicide by jumping off a bridge. She was not a veteran, nor is she someone identifiable by any of my activist friends. She did, however, suffer from severe moral injuries. Yesterday, I had a conversation with an Iraq veteran who was in Iraq in 2007. No one in his military unit were killed, but after they came home, six of his friends eventually committed suicide. The Iraq veteran I talked with attempted suicide, but eventually got help, and is doing quite well now.  Before I had the conversation with that veteran yesterday, I was working on a piece that I had titled, ” Moral Injury 24 X 7.”  This is that completed writing:

Moral Injury 24 X 7

“You” are walking around in circles,

morbidly depressed and withdrawn.

Nothing makes any sense anymore.

But, it never made any sense long  before

“You” ever went to war.

It was simply “your” turn to find out the

absolute truth, and finally realize why

countless veterans throughout history

wound up in suicide cemeteries.

“You” never knew about betrayal,

because those who went before

“you” were never allowed to speak.

The public just wants heroes.

They do not want to know the

veteran’s mindfield.

The magnitude of “your” illness is equal

to the depth of “your” silence.

Mike Hastie

Army Medic Viet Nam

June 20, 2018

Believe Peace is Possible

 
You won’t see much of this on US media, but the Afghan Taliban and the Afghan government have declared a ceasefire for the Eid Holiday, something the Afghan government has just extended and something the US military has not committed to.
These photos are of Afghan soldiers and police alongside Afghan Taliban fighters celebrating the ceasefire with one another. No clearer proof is needed to understand the absurdity and criminality of this war, and the other wars of this world, and the perennial suffering of the common man and woman, forced to take sides, often simply because of some form of sectarian identity or allegiance which is usually obligated only by the circumstances of birth. Meanwhile it is the powerful, the wealthy and the corporatized, almost always corrupted and wicked, in spite of moral and patriotic protestations otherwise, who trumpet and proclaim the need for war and who continue these wars despite the desire of the masses of people for peace.
Don’t believe the media, the politicians and the generals. Peace is possible. It always has been.