[[NURE ]]
Those intending to stop fellow Americans in Armed Forces uniform and in CIA disguise from continuing to mass murder in vulnerable or defenseless nations with the full cooperation, collaboration or acquiescence of most citizens, must no longer be silent about our fellow peace advocates forever protesting to divert the rest of us from calling for the immediate prosecution of those responsible for the millions slaughtered.
Perpetrators of homicidal crimes are not normally protested to. Unless cowed or complicit, people call for their arrest by the police, that society be protected. Did people in Chicago complain to Al Capone about his murderous protection racket? If folks find out the identity of a serial killer, do they write to him in protest?
How many want to be seen protesting the wars in order to feel good about themselves? How many veterans protest in order to be seen as reformed after having killed for the Military Industrial Complex? How many activists feel they are bringing honor to themselves when making a show of protesting in front of their own elected and reelected public servants, protesting though they realize every war will go on until investors signal government officials to end it? How many protesting to their own reelected war criminals would never go so far as to demand their arrest and prosecution?
When crime is investigated, whoever paid for the crime to be done is/are considered most guilty. It is no longer a secret that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt confided in a note to a colleague that all US governments since Andrew Jackson have been owned by a financial element in the centers of power.[1] Do antiwar activists address their protests to bankers Ben Shalom Bernanke, Henry Merritt Paulson, Timothy F. Geithner, Lawrence Henry Summers, or investors William Henry Gates, Warren Edward Buffett, Larry Ellison, Charles and Ed Koch, Christy, Jim, Alice, Robson and Ann Walton, Michael Bloomberg, George Soros, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission or the Bilderberg Group?
But 'illegal,' 'crime,' 'criminal.' legally insane,' 'crimes against humanity,' crimes against peace,' are all useful terms of actual explanation and are still used in courts of law and in discussions of violations of law prosecutable both by courts or in the court of public opinion (which very often leads to unignorable calls for arrest and charges to be filed).
Getting pushed around by Secret Service agents for asking the president to stop killing Afghans or uncovering signs like 'Hands Off Iran,' is no substitute for calling for his prosecution. When we hear that someone has stood up and told a murdering President that we will prosecute him as a war criminal, we'll know that we are on the right track and that our intention to end the killing will be taken seriously.
What is the purpose of sending salaried officials of peace organizations to visit Pakistan or Afghanistan to apologize for the kills of our elected government's military, composed of fellow American citizens daily murdering designated suspected enemies of the US along with a much greater number of collaterally murdered unsuspected Pakistani citizens and their children?
Is it to make those of us protesting look good? That it is not our fault? To make America look like it is divided in two, the guilty and the innocent, which it is most certainly not. To make it look as if protestors are doing something to stop the murders?
Pakistanis should respond, 'Why don't you tell your friends to stop murdering us? Why don't you arrest those that do as criminals? Why don't you? Do you even call for the law be enforced and prosecute those murdering us?'
But not to worry, the visiting veterans of other US illegal wars on humanity will probably not hear this. The Veterans For Peace are most likely apologizing to the very Pakistanis that are in cahoots with, and receiving money from, the US criminals respecting the wishes of the investment community led from Wall Street - otherwise it would be dangerous for ex-US soldiers to visit US hating Pakistan.
In the face of so much dishonesty within the peace movement, activists really intending to stop the illegal and undeclared atrocity 'wars' (officially police actions, or defensive preempting military responses), by calling for their prosecution should make joint cause - joint cause to promote an intention to prosecute these military atrocities under the full force of the law, actually many laws:
Nuremberg Principles Six and Seven adhered to by all signers of the UN Charter,
Treaty for the Renunciation of War, World Peace Act, previously Kellogg-Briand Pact, which became part of the US Constitution (as did the Nuremberg Principles) upon being approved by a US Senate vote of 85-1
Constitutional Law,
and Common Law - the laws of humanity as handed down and recorded over the ages.
There are, in addition, revered laws written in religious scripture, even if their implementation be presently blocked by corrupted organized clergy - cooperating with the devil so to speak.
When a law is not being enforced, it does not mean the law no longer exists. The law continues to exist in the hearts and minds of the people being victimized and will eventually be used to prosecute, sooner better than later in scholarly entries within documented histories.
The founders of the King Condemned US Wars International Awareness Campaign,[2] Rev. Dr. King himself, and most of those who have endorsed his condemnations, are sure of the eventual prosecution of US wars against humanity.
What on earth can be more obvious than the need to call for prosecution, if a even a highly respected conservative Republican US Congressman candidate for president states over and over again that all these wars from Korea on were illegal and unconstitutional, often adding that they were therefore criminal because of the loss of so much life incurred, doubly criminal for being conducted under media promoted false pretenses.
Did a great roar of approval go up all from the hundreds of organizations that have the word 'peace' in their titles? Did they take the ball from Ron Paul and run with it? Most groups have multiple priorities, not only being in favor of and speaking about peace and opposing war either in particular or in general. Peace is often not the issue their members are focusing on. Those that have protecting the Obama presidency as a prime objective might have pretended not to have heard Ron Paul.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
1
1
