from: http://www.examiner.com/x-18425-LA-County-Nonpartisan-Examiner

The President of the US swears to “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution (article VI, paragraph 2) states: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” One of the most important treaties is that governing when a nation may go to war. After 20th century wars that killed over 100 million human beings, the UN was formed to eliminate war as a foreign policy option The UN Charter is registered in the US State Department as a Treaty in Force.

Therefore, one of the most important Constitutional duties of any US President is to follow the law to not unleash the world’s most powerful destructive force and to defend innocent civilians from such onslaught and misery.

On August 17, 2009 President Obama again defended the US invasion of Afghanistan. He called it “fundamental to the defense of our people,” and said, “But we must never forget this is not a war of choice, this is a war of necessity. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al-Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans."

The US legal argument that the invasion of Afghanistan is not a War of Aggression is that the US actions in Afghanistan are defensive. A War of Aggression is defined as a non-defensive war that is unauthorized by the UN Security Council. Osama bin Laden was being protected by the Taliban Afghan government, which made them co-terrorists demonstrating intent to inflict another 9/11 upon the US. This legal opinion of “defensive action” supersedes the opinion of the UN Security Council, who did not authorize use of force.

Let’s review the history of the US invasion of Afghanistan before we analyze the US claim that this is a defensive war. After the attacks of 9/11, the US government requested the cooperation of the Afghanistan government for extradition of Osama bid Laden to be charged with the 9/11 attacks. The Afghan government agreed, as per usual cooperative international law, as soon as the US government provided evidence of bin Laden’s involvement.[1] The US government refused to provide any evidence. The Afghan government refused US troops entering their country and extradition until evidence was provided, and made their argument to the world press for the rule of law to apply to the US extradition request. The US invaded Afghanistan without providing evidence and without UN Security Council approval. President Bush stated, “There’s no need to discuss evidence of innocence or guilt. We know he’s guilty.”[2] Seven years later, despite promises to do so, the US has not provided any evidence that bin Laden was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Indeed, the FBI does not seek bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks, stating “there is no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.”[3] Some of you might have heard of a bin Laden “confession video.” The Pentagon’s “official translation” seems to indicate foreknowledge of the attacks, but independent translations show that the “official” version is a manipulation and an accurate translation shows no evidence of involvement.[4] Apparently, the FBI is in agreement with the independent translations as they do not seek him for the crime. Indeed, Princeton professor of International Law Richard Falk articulates doubts concerning many aspects of the government’s explanation of 9/11.[5] This view of a counter-government explanation is now shared by over 1,500 reputable scholars and professionals with academic training and professional experience that qualify them as experts in their testimonies.[6]

Facts: The US invaded Afghanistan. The US provided no evidence to the Taliban Afghan government that bin Laden was involved in 9/11 and still have not done so. The US has provided no evidence that the Taliban supported the attacks of 9/11. The UN Security Council did not authorize use of force in Afghanistan. The US has provided no evidence of imminent threat to US national security from the Taliban. With no evidence of imminent threat or attack by Afghanistan, the US invasion is a War of Aggression. It's just that simple. I invite you to understand these facts well enough to communicate them powerfully to others.

The words of President Obama are the same as all tyrants: whatever justification to best sell the most horrific crime a nation can commit. They are lies of commission and lies of omission to not give you the context I just provided of the law. The US is engaged in Wars of Aggression with our tax dollars and under our flag.

What will you do? Unless you have a better idea, I suggest supporting a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, as I’ve previously argued.
http://www.examiner.com/x-18425-LA-County-Nonpartisan-Examiner~y2009m8d13-Cognitive-dissonance-Hitler-size-US-war-lies-and...

Please share this information with anyone who says they want to be a responsible citizen.

If you like my work, please subscribe at the top of the Examiner.com page to receive my articles so you may more easily share them. If enough of us are educated, speak, and act, these Wars of Aggression will end. Until such time, expect more of the same.

“Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. ...voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”
– Hermann Goering, 1946 Nuremberg Trial. Quoted by Nuremberg prison psychologist, Gilbert Gustave in Nuremberg Diary, page 278, published by Da Capo Press, 1995
ISBN 0306806614, 9780306806612

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Global Research. Rudmin, F. Military oaths confront the Constitution: the Omar Khadr case. Nov. 11, 2008: http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10899 .
[2] The Guardian: Bush Rejects Taliban Offer to Hand bin Laden Over. Oct. 14, 2001: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5 .
[3] Project Censored. Top 25 Censored Stories for 2008. #16: No Hard Evidence Connecting bin Laden to 9/11: http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/16-no-hard-evidence-connecting-bin-laden-to-9-11/ .
[4] 911 Review.org. Bin Laden Confession: http://911review.org/Wiki/BinLadenConfession.shtml and Lederman, R. German Media: bin Laden 'Smoking Gun' Tape Translation Inaccurate. Jan. 1, 2002: http://www.rense.com/general18/inac.htm .
[5] The Journal. Falk, R. 9/11: more than meets the eye. Nov. 9, 2008: http://www.journal-online.co.uk/article/5056-911-more-than-meets-the-eye and http://www.911blogger.com/node/18483.
[6] Patriots for 9/11 Truth: http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html .