Top Activist Lawyers and Paralegals Group Opposes US Crime Against Humanity?

No war on Syria NYC by World Can't Wait

On one occasion some eight or nine years ago, this writer had the honor of attending a public event of the wonderful Center For Constitutional Rights, and felt humbled to be in the presence of defenders of the tortured innocents at Guantanamo, heroically fighting for the illegally oppressed and injured by government in so many other places; felt fortunate to have been able to ask admirable officials like Bill Goodman and Bill Quigley about puzzling issues and to have had the opportunity to listen to its President Michael Ratner speak eloquently about the use of law to protect against government lawlessness.

Since that time yours truly has slowly become aware of a atmosphere of acceptance of American immunity from prosecution for crimes against humanity and crimes against peace within the community of antiwar activists and journalists.

Agonizing over being an American since the US-UN genocidal war on the Korean nation, your writer was disappointed to find this email in his "sent' box, yesterday (9/9/2013):
"CCR Statement Opposing US Military Intervention in Syria

News Update
 Center for Constitutional Rights
Dear CCR supporter, "We strongly oppose U.S. military intervention in Syria and urge the Obama administration to support increased diplomatic measures to protect civilians in the region."

What does it mean when a law enforcement promoting activist organization states "opposition' to an already committed crime against peace, and a threat to increase actions of mass-murder already ongoing, crimes against humanity, and against the Constitution besides. It reads similar, as in, for example, 'police are opposed to bank robbing, murder, fraud etc.'

Yes, Yes, but every honest person and his mother wants to have crime prosecuted, not 'opposed' ostentatiously by our respected organization of most worthy lawyers and paralegal brothers.  The considerable amount of normal Americans that still have a conscience and a five year old's ability to put themselves in the shoes of the poor people Americans in uniform have been  slaughtering since anyone can remember, count on the Center For Constitutional Rights and the National Lawyers Guild to help bring that America, which has been breaking the constitution in genocidal crime, to justice.

Is it not an American Constitutional right, not to have crime after crime after crime against humanity perpetrated in his or her  name and in the name of all American citizens?

The only "diplomatic measures" we have read about in war promoting corporate owned media have been a continuing charade of discussions to give the CIA and its many foreign branches time to drag out the destruction of Syria as it did in an even more prosperous, but tiny, nation, not adhering to the Wall Street led domination by speculative investment banks of the now neo-Colonial Powers. If anyone wants to deny this, be the author's guest. It will not be documented in this article, because their are worst things of urgency to stop that can be proven.

The Center for Constitutional Rights Director of Education and Outreach alert continues:
"A United Nations investigation into the massacre of last week is still ongoing."
Let's see, what kind of CCR education this is purporting to be, in citing the auspices of the United Nations as trustworthy:
The UN flag was painted on the US warplanes that bombed Korea flat twice over - both parts America had cut it into.  Three years ago, before the UN General Assembly, the revolutionary hero, liberator of his then poorest nation in Africa, Chairman of the African Union he helped found to defend Africa from continued neo-colonialist exploitation, well described the United Nations founded by the Colonial Powers (after a world war that was awesomely profitable for the United States), as having its Security Council, which he termed a "council of terror,' facilitate, as an arm of US foreign policy, dozens of wars against poor Third World nations. Shall CCR mean we still look to the United Nations Security Council as pro-peace and justice and for implementation of Nuremberg Principles Law?  Has anyone read or heard the scathing condemnation of UN Security Council crimes by humanitarian and would-be UN  reformer, former President of the General Assembly Father M. d'Escoto Brockmann?

The next sentence from CCR Education Outreach is tightly focused on a crime charged by the US against the Syrian "regime' (as the elected government of Syria is referred to derogatorily in pro-permanent-war US media).
"For whoever is deemed responsible, accountability must come by way of investigation and prosecutions under international law, not further militarism in the region."

This is solely in reference to a charge brought by President Obama, as justification for a missile attack. An accusation which President Assad ridiculed while being interviewed yesterday, 9/9/2013 evening, by that criminal defender of US wars, Charlie Rose, as did British MP George Galoway as well, when he roared out in the House of Commons, that the US was charging that the Syrian government decided to mount a gas attack, within Damascus, on its own people, on the very day UN inspectors were arriving by the Syrian government's own invitation!  Motive? - to give the Western forces funding the terrorists a pretext to do what it did in Libya, namely, use the industrialized nations warships and warplanes to insure the success of CIA and its foreign branches trained, armed and funded terrorist recruits, recruits that include in both cases a preponderance of al Qaeda (long openly admitted in Western media), while simultaneously drone-bombing other al Qaeda in Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia and North Africa.

For the past month or more Western media has been lamenting the success of the Syrian army against the "rebels' that are funded and led from Washington. Talk shows have batted around the question, "how can the US overthrow "the Assad regime now?'  The answer came a few days ago: a US attack by warplanes and ships.

Remember the blitz missile and bomb attack on the small Libyan government army and militias by US, UK and France (the latter two, former colonial occupiers of Libya) was hurriedly authorized as the CIA managed so called "rebellion' (by heavily armed pickup trucks) was being rolled up successfully and its brutally conquered towns restored to peacefulness.

As the NATO report that more than seventy percent of the Syrian people support their government and their elected President Assad [1] and massive pro-government demonstrations are carefully never mentioned in round table discussions of what to do about Syria, just so did mainstream media never show the videos of a near million Libyans out of a total population of six million, demonstrating wildly and desperately to show the world their support for their Green Book Arab Socialist government to Seif Gadaffi's naive jubilation, as British and French warplanes were going on with wiping out the Libyan army and militias, destroying a nation with a higher UN Quality of Life Index than nine European countries. [2]

No one could disagree with the fine compassionate concluding paragraph of the news update of the Director of CCR Education and Outreach, until the Pollyanna in the last line:
"The U.S. should be accounting for this harm and making reparations, not readying to engage militarily once again." 
"It is a manifest lesson of this country's recent history that U.S. military intervention in conflicts of this kind has not served human rights or humanitarian purposes, even when these are the stated goals. The U.S. and Iraq are still reeling and suffering from a decade-long illegal war that was waged on the basis of false information about weapons of mass destruction and sold to the American people as a quick military intervention. Hundreds of thousands, including many civilians and children, died as a result of that war, in which the U.S. used weapons that have been widely condemned, such as white phosphorous, napalm-class weapons and weapons containing depleted uranium. Iraq is still dealing with the catastrophic aftermath, which includes skyrocketing rates in birth defects and cancer widely attributed to the use of these weapons. The U.S. should be accounting for this harm and making reparations, not readying to engage militarily once again."