New Constitution Needed To Thwart NeoConservative Plans To More Effectively Wage Illegal War
War Crimes Prosecutors Digest Perle's Fatal Admission: Not All Peaceful Options Exhausted
Welcome searchers, others are discussing the Pearle/Perle Vanity Fair article here. Anyone is welcome to join the conversation.
[ Direct link: http://tinyurl.com/saqhv ] In Vanity Fair, Richard Perle has fatally admitted, prior to the invasion of Iraq, not all non-military options were exhausted. This is damaging information of interest to war crimes prosecutors.
Yet, the greater lesson of the article is the ominous NeoConservative belief that their (illegal) agenda might have succeeded had they been given full support. This was the same claim Hitler used after WWI to inspire the Nazi Party going into WWII. Like the WWI-II era Germans, the US illegally relies on its incompetence to rationalize war crimes.
Note Perle agreed to tell the truth -- something voters need -- only if that truth were revealed after the election. This casts doubts about his motivations do the right thing. Like the Iraq planning, the REpublicans are only willing to cooperate if it is on their terms, not on terms of what is lawful or in America's interests. Ref
A New Constitution must heed the lessons of WWI and the failures of this NeoConservative movement, and lawfully prevent similar abuses of power.
The Neoconservatives are not showing true remorse, only sadness that their illegal plans did not prevail. This should give pause to the war crimes prosecutors and adjudicators: Unless those convicted of war crimes are lawfully executed, they will likely do what was done after WWI -- find a new way to rally greater force to unlawfully impose their agenda.
Addington, Gonzalez, Berenson, and Yoo met to devised means to expand Executive Power. The Neoconservatives haven't shown remorse for the illegal power grab or unlawful force; only that they didn't supply enough military force to impose their unlawful solution.
A plain reading of the FY06 Senate Intelligence Bill shows us what the Neoconservatives are capable of doing: Twisting the laws to justify secret methods to wage illegal warfare. Until there are credible sanctions for secretly doing this, the world should fully expect these abuses to recur.
Secret Desire For Another Pearl Harbor, 9-11?
Cohen: "Unfortunately, it will probably take another big hit. And a very different quality of leadership. Maybe we'll get it." Ref
___ What new 9-11 is being planned?
___ What scheme is being devised to justify rallying more force to illegally do what otherwise is not supportable?
___ What new pretext will be fabricated?
___ Will the Neoconservatives learn from Hitler after WWI, and devise another phony Polish-like invasion of Germany as a pretext for an unprovoked war?
___ Have the Neoconservatives been compelled to sign affidavits whether they are or are not aware of another pre-textual 9-11 event?
___ In the Neoconservative's view, how much illegal force should have marshaled to wage illegal war, but prevail over others: How big would the military draft have been to sustain the illegal war?
Lawful war only exists if all non-military options have been exhausted; and there is an imminent threat.
[ Direct link: http://tinyurl.com/saqhv ] Richard Perl has fatally admitted that not all non-military options were exhausted, implicitly admitting to illegal war crimes. Even if there had been an imminent threat, which there was not, Perle's admission fatally undermines the legal foundation for war.
Had the limits of the law been recognized, this question would have been asked, not sidelined with an illegal war. Richard Perle:
'No, let's consider other strategies for dealing with the thing that concerns us most, which is Saddam supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.' Could we have managed that threat by means other than a direct military intervention? Well, maybe we could have."Ref
Law As Boundary, Guide
The idea of the UN, laws of war, and Supreme Law is to force people to use non-military options, not go through a charade of diplomacy, while seeking to use illegal force. The other non-military options were not considered because there were no perceived consequences for doing what was illegal.
The idea of the law is to act as a boundary. If one has to violate the law to achieve an objective, there's a good chance that lawful options have not been used; and the objective and means need to be rethought. There was no real timeline: Only a pre-determined schedule to impose a military solution. Even if democracy were imposed, the Americans were ill-prepared to effectively interact with a nation that democratically chose to oppose an illegal American occupation.
This crew does not plan to end its activity, but remain lurking in the shadows for future generations. Note closely, and prepare your children and grand children to lawfully oppose this illegal ideology of unlawful military expansion, and abuse.
Fearing that worse is still to come, [ Direct link: http://tinyurl.com/saqhv ] Adelman believes that neoconservatism itself—what he defines as "the idea of a tough foreign policy on behalf of morality, the idea of using our power for moral good in the world"—is dead, at least for a generation.
Remind future generations of what is possible, and what remains lurking, ready to destroy the American Constitution. Our New Constitution must be in place, ready to oppose, and prevail.
A New Constitution must raise the bar to using military force; make it more difficult to manufacture a war based on false evidence; make it clear to the executives that illegal war is punishable by the death penalty; make it clear that illegal use of military force, before exhausting all non-military options, is illegal; and that morality cannot be imposed by the threat of force.
A tough foreign policy does not protect America; it emboldens lawful opposition to what is failed. Rather than "tough," prudent and pragmatic.
Where were the plans to lawfully work with other nations in Africa to develop an export market? These were discussed well before 9-11, but rejected. Americans chose to assert power through illegal force, rather than work with other nations to develop economic markets.
Despite the flawed policy, the wrong lesson is being gleaned. The war itself, regardless the means to implement the policy was defective.
The incorrect lessons, as was after WWI, was that if a nation has the means to implement an illegal policy, then that (absurdly) makes the (illegal) policy just.
This is absurd:
"I would write an article that would be skeptical over whether there would be a performance that would be good enough to implement our policy. The policy can be absolutely right, and noble, beneficial, but if you can't execute it, it's useless, just useless.
The lesson for future generations is that the wrong lessons may be gleaned; rather than contain illegal war, the future generations may be tempted to use more force to illegally do what is not lawful. Policy cannot be argued to be right or beneficial if it can only be executed with greater abuse of power than what failed in Iraq.
Notice the denial of the former White House personnel:
Richard Perle: "Huge mistakes were made, and I want to be very clear on this: They were not made by neoconservatives, who had almost no voice in what happened, and certainly almost no voice in what happened after the downfall of the regime in Baghdad
Stunningly, the neoconservatives, despite their reservations, are still in denial mode: "It wasn't us." The issue for future generations is: What tools, methods, or support do the neoconservatives (incorrectly) believe they were denied, not provided, or were otherwise not afforded.
Beware: There will be calls to marshal more support for illegal warfare; make opposition to illegal activity more difficult; father hide the contracts and unlawful plans with greater threats if disclosed; and secretly build up more force.
The lesson of WWI is those who abuse power, but are permitted to blame others, will secretly repeat their plans, but with greater power.
The Neoconservatives are using the Vanity Fair information as a pretext to engage in secret planning, develop other alliances, find new ways to impose their agenda, and silence others using greater abuses.
Learn the lessons of WWI and WWII in Germany. The Neoconservatives plan to return, and unless they are lawfully subdued, the world will, as it had to in WWII, lawfully unite to destroy the NeoConservative Movement.
May the New Constitution be crafted to prevent what happened after WWI in Germany; and may the document lawfully remind future generations of their options and responsibilities well before the NeoConservatives delude another generation of the benefits of illegal abuse of power to unlawfully violate the rights of the innocent.
NeoConservatism isn't dead, it's merely nurturing a new generation to wage illegal war, convincing them to broadly accept what should be rejected. Beware, they are devising a new scheme to do what they have failed to do.
The challenge is to explore what the Neoconsservatives might devise, then develop a more robust legal, oversight system that makes their scheme impossible to implement. Here are some questions to challenge the effectiveness of this New Constitution.
Consider the following questions, and discuss with your friends whether the New Constitution would likely thwart or prevent what the Neoconservatives can be expected to devised in the coming generations:
___ What will Neoconservatives ask future generations to ignore reject, not pay attention to: How will a New Constitution detect, and reject invalid appeals to illegal use force?:
___ What new crisis will be manufactured to overshadow the lessons: How would a New Constitution detect, and ensure use of force is lawful, not illegally used without effective oversight or prosecution?
___ What new pretext will be created to give up rights, assent to abuse: How would a New Constitution ensure that the pre-texts were discovered, and not used as a basis to illegally wage war, abuse power, or compel citizens to give up rights?
___ Will the United States have to be lawfully destroyed, as was Nazi Germany, before the abusive power is lawfully contained: How would a New Constitution ensure that the Constitution was protected and preserved?
___ What must be done to ensure lawful, non-military options are exhausted: How will the New Constitution ensure that there are credible checks on power before it is used?
___ What will be done to ensure there are not artificial timelines: How would a New Constitution more quickly discover and disclose false evidence related to illegal abuse of power; and timely prosecute with credible sanctions those who wage illegal war on the basis of fabricated information?
___ What will be done to ensure illegal force is not imposed to export a failed ideology: How would a New Constitution ensure Americans put into practice principles, and show the world, by example, the benefits of a Constitutional System?
___ Is American ready to accept other nations, having been illegally invaded, might democratically choose to wage lawful war against the United States: How would a New Constitution ensure that citizens, states, and other nations may lawfully act as a check on an abuse of power should the US government refuse to protect the Constitution?
___ Why should we believe they have exhausted all non-military options: How would a New Constitution reward those who assert lawful options to protect the Constitution?
___ What is the urgency; why should we believe the assertions; what information have they failed to explain: How would a New Constitution make it a requirement that investigations, prosecutions, and reviews occur well before fabricated evidence is debated and used as the basis for illegal war?