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?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
