These two crimes in particular represent reprehensible infringements on the rights of another.
And, grievous though they be, I contend that the murders carried out by our military by far exceed the noxious consequences of even those heinous acts. Entire families are murdered indiscriminately. Here, you may righteously scream that our brave soldiers are defending our freedom and therefore the killing of the enemy cannot be construed as murder. It Is what is termed "Unlawful", which distinguishes murder from killings that are done within the boundaries of law, such as execution, self-defense or the killing of enemy soldiers during a war, which in this case, grants immunity to the military. It all sounds so legal and above board.
BUT, what if the so-called war was in itself illegal? What if the freedoms our brave soldiers are supposedly defending are in graver danger of being eroded here at home than they are from enemies we have created abroad? We have suspended habeas corpus and privacy rights. American citizens can now be assassinated by order of the President, or detained indefinitely without even a hearing. Does that not effectively kill "defense of freedom" as our ostensible reason initiating war? Initially Afghanistan was bombed and invaded, so we were told, because the Taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden, the supposed mastermind behind 9/11. Actually, the Taliban did offer to surrender him to a neutral country upon presentation of evidence that he was indeed responsible. This evidence was never presented. Does this not make the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan illegal, particularly since most all of the supposed hijackers were from Saudi Arabia?
Does the bombing and invasion of Iraq for supposed possession of WMD which were never found make that entire operation illegal? Neither Afghanistan or Iraq represented any threat whatever to the United States. We have justified both of these atrocities under the dubious label of the "War On Terror" which is as ridiculously designed and deceitful as the War On Drugs.
My friends, we must understand that all of these inexcusable offenses are not just violations of our own laws and treaties, but they are international crimes against humanity. In that respect, the killing that results must be considered murder. While it is acknowledged that an exclusion to murder is "The killing of enemy combatants by lawful combatants," it carries with it the addendum, "In accordance with lawful orders in war." The Military Code requires obedience only to lawful orders. Therefore, if the instigation of the action is itself illegal, the orders and their execution must also be considered illegal and a capital crime. In both cases, since the attacks by us were premeditated and preemptive with no evidence of even a threat, the attack on Afghanistan having been planned prior to 9/11, there can be no plea of self-defense. Of course, there is always the possibility of a plea of insanity, perhaps with reason.
With even American women now clamoring for the right to kill even though it be acknowledged as murder, I find myself at a loss to explain why. Then, when you consider that the only reason for the murders is so that a certain 1% of elite bankers, entrepreneurs and manufacturers can increase their obscene wealth at the expense and sacrifice of those who remain oblivious to the truth,
What else but madness?