better formatting and hyperlinks live at source: http://www.examiner.com/la-county-nonpartisan-in-los-angeles/i-attended-a-conservative-9-11-event-with-us-wars-are-unlawfu...

This article series explains what happened when I interacted with participants of a 9/11 event to welcome home US soldiers and honor the victims of 9/11, then provides the e-mail exchange with the sponsoring group’s leadership.

Consistent with my last two years of writing articles to explain, document, and prove current US wars aren’t even close to lawful and all based on lies, nobody at this event of mostly current and former US military could defend current US wars as lawful, even in subsequent e-mails and in their consultation with the group’s “Constitutionalist.” I challenge anyone to explain, document, and prove in the comments section below that US war in Afghanistan, Iraq, and/or Iran is legal (you can put what you say in more than one comment). I will likely demand anyone making such argument to refute my longer explanation of US war law that I will reference in my comment responses from my article, “Open proposal to US higher education.”

I encourage anyone with passion to end unlawful US wars to take my article’s “emperor has no clothes” obvious explanation and documentation of US war law to act with confidence to end US wars. Our soldiers’ response to their Oath of Enlistment to support and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, is to refuse all orders of unlawful wars.

This article series’ sections:

Part 1: Introduction, what happened at the event, and my first e-mail to the event sponsors.

Part 2: E-mails from group leaders, who I’ll name, “Tom,” “Dick,” and “Harry” (I’ll forward them the article; they can identify themselves if they choose). Tom and Dick go on the offensive.

Part 3: E-mail continuation: My response to Dick, their “Constitutionalist” says this issue is a waste of time. Tom responds.

Part 4: E-mail continuation: attempting to reach Tom with reason

Part 5: E-mail conclusion with Tom.

Part 6: A possible addendum should event organizers wish to respond.

* * * * *

This is Part 5: E-mail conclusion with Tom

9/19 to Tom:

Tom:

Last call:

I know you support our soldiers. Do you still support this war?

Or do you see it as unlawful and thereby something to end?

Do you have the intellectual integrity and moral courage to answer, or will you dodge this question?

You don't have to answer; this is your call, Tom. You've had the courage to engage in the question of lawful or unlawful war, which I appreciate. As a social studies teacher, psychology is a topic in our department. Cognitive dissonance is the rejection of facts when they prove too disturbing; I understand and have witnessed many people go through the painful process (including myself). But if you can do it, I recommend taking the step to, as you say, "live in the real world." The real facts are that patriotic Americans working hard and living in good faith were duped by political leadership to support US wars for purposes other than lawful use of force. These acts killed over 5,000 American soldiers and over a million human beings living outside the US. The long-term cost is $3-$5 trillion of our dollars. Tom, these events are in the area of my academic training and professional experience, so I see them clearly for what they are: unlawful Wars of Aggression that our citizens and soldiers should refuse, and that we should prosecute the "leadership" that planned them, lied to sell them, and ordered our naive soldiers to execute (and hence guilty of attacking and killing our own soldiers in "emperor has no clothes" obvious illegal war). This US "leadership" is bi-partisan and includes corporate media.

If you take this step, life becomes easier to understand. America, just like all other powerful nations in the past and/or present, is having an episode of fascism for empire. "Leading" families are being consumed by greed and lust for power that can never be satisfied.

You can understand one law, Tom, the law bought by American soldiers' blood and courage for generations: war law. You can do this.

If you can do it, take the step to stand with our Founding Fathers and inalienable rights for all humanity to enforce government UNDER the law from the consent of the governed.

If you can do it, have the intellectual courage and moral integrity to call a lie what it is: a lie. If you can do it, call something that's obviously illegal what it is: illegal.

In this case, supporting our soldiers means protecting their trust and unexamined acceptance of civilian "leadership" by standing for the facts and advising them of war law, and reminding them of their Oath of Enlistment to support and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, including domestic political leadership. As I've written, and perhaps you remember reading, this threat is what most worried our Founding Fathers.

In closing and appreciation of the power you have to further or thwart lawful and moral use of US military, I ask if you have anything more to say.

I know you support our soldiers. Do you still support this war?

Or do you see it as unlawful and thereby something to end?

Do you have the intellectual integrity and moral courage to answer, or will you dodge this question?

Your voice makes a difference, citizen. How will you use it: in silent complicity of mass murder now that you're informed of war law, or for justice under the law that shields our soldiers and their families from the harm of invading foreign nations in unlawful wars of plunder?

Carl

Carl_Herman@post.harvard.edu

9/19 from Tom:

Relax. I was not ignoring you, I just don't read my e-mail everyday.
Although, you HAVE worn me down.

OK, your questions:

YOU are the one who keeps making this a war issue. I have told you several times that our group does not celebrate war. We are always very clear to point out we just support 2 issues (Honoring the troops and remembering the victims of 9-11).

You, however, are obviously trying to make this a war issue. OK, my personal response only: I suppose I support it more than not. I know, this means I do not support our constitution because I do not support the UN. I thought I already addressed all this in several prior e-mails. In any case, I here it is again.

You keep calling my courage into question. I have no idea why. I guess you must see it as some sort of a challenge that no male can pass up. I would suggest you should probably get over it. Although I am afraid
of you, I am not afraid of standing up to you. I remember the first time you accused me of being a coward--you accused me of not having the courage to tell you my name, whatever.... I did notice you never responded to my point that it was MY EMAIL.

I would like to point out that you have dodged almost every question I have asked you at least once. Sure, you have eventually answered most of them after I had to re-ask, but I never called you a coward. Get over yourself. I am thinking you must either be an attorney or want to be one--I suppose I shall never know.

As I have said over and over, why can't we agree to disagree? Do you really feel it is so important to have control over everything? Your are the genius, so tell me: Does that reek of narcissism?

Anyway, I concede again: Your are right and I am wrong.

Take care,

Tom

9/19 to Tom

Tom:

With all respect and appreciation for your obvious intention to support US soldiers, and in addition to being I’m sure a hard-working and generally caring and honest individual:

1.If US wars are unlawful under US law in the US created treaty to extend that law to all other nations who signed-up, why do you support these wars as an individual?
2.How are you honoring US troops when you don’t communicate what you now know that their invasion and attack in foreign countries are not close to lawful, and given war law is less complicated to understand than the infield fly rule in baseball or a legal punt in football?
I’ve told you that I support you doing what you see as right. I’m just a person who came to your well-intended 9/11 event and exercised my 1stAmendment rights in private conversations to communicate my perspective on how to support our soldiers. My interest in attending the 9/11 event was to discover if I could be of service given my academic and professional area of work. I’ve done what my heart and mind called me to do.

I sent an e-mail of thanks to the event sponsors and offered to explain what I wrote about US war law (as a teacher of history and government; I am not an attorney) to anyone interested. Your e-mail response evoked my questions.

If you want to support unlawful wars, go for it. I’m just asking how you reconcile that position with supporting American soldiers and their families. I’m not controlling this or being narcissistic; I’m being of service to intervene and give you a reality check on the facts of war lies and war law. Again, please proceed as you see best. If you want to answer, fine. If not, fine.

Tom, explain to me how supporting an unlawful war is helping our soldiers and I’m happy to “agree to disagree” that we have two different ways of support.

I just don’t see how you can take that position if you stop, think, reflect, and express your heart and mind’s highest virtues.

I predict that you will stand with our Founding Fathers against obvious tyranny when it’s pointed-out to you. I suggest that move is in your best interests, but only if you do the work to understand the issue and look for yourself.

I’ll answer any question you have: what do you still want to ask? The only areas of curiosity I have for you is 1 and 2 above.

Carl

9/20, from Tom:

First, I have a question. I would be interested in knowing what people/society/ or country has ever been justified to fight in a war.

To Tom, 9/20:

Sure, Tom,

Over thousands of years, people have considered this question. There is no factual answer for "right" or "wrong" in objective terms; interpretations will vary from perspective. In principle, legitimate self-defense from attack is a strong argument we've established in our communication that we both agree with. I would also add defending others from attack. This can also be defense from political tyranny, as in the American Revolution. Scholars have argued for these justifications for war.

Therefore, to approach your question with specific historical examples, when any of those categories are justified by the facts, those are arguably justified wars. We must be careful to get the FACTS and not fall for propaganda. All of imperial Rome's military conquests were voted in the Senate as "self-defense," and false-flag attacks are common national strategies to dupe their publics into embracing a cloaked offensive war. For example, Nazi Germany used a false-flag attack to burn the Reichstag and declare suspension of their constitution followed by a false-flag attack to invade Poland. There are more current examples, but I want to stay safely within examples that are not controversial for you.

A justified military action was removing Saddam's Iraq from their invasion of Kuwait. There are many unlawful acts associated to this war, but demanding withdrawal from military invasion with threat of force upon non-compliance is justified, both under current US-created treaty law through the UN, and in most peoples' sense of morality. Forcing Hitler to withdraw from Poland, Japan to withdraw from China, North Korea to withdraw from South Korea (another complex situation) are similar. Under today's standards, imperial conquests are historical examples of military invasions to control resources that justify self-defense; thereby shining light on imperial England and France's hypocrisy to dominate the losers' colonies in WW1. This history of colonialism that extends into African nations through the 1960s and consequences that continue today also provide a legitimate frame to consider for US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, Iraq, and threat of war with Iran.

Your turn.

Carl

Carl_Herman@post.harvard.edu

9/24 to Tom

You done, Tom, or would you like to respond?

Enjoy the day,

Carl

Part 6: Possible addendum should the event organizers choose to respond.