Legally Required Refusal To Disobey Unlawful Presidential Orders
American Targeting Intelligence Known to be Unreliable; US Cannot Legally Enforce President's Illegal Iran Attack Orders
The United States intelligence about Iran is known to be unreliable, raising serious legal challenges to lawfulness of the President's orders.
If you have evidence, please forward it:
Luis Moreno Ocampo, ICC Prosecutor
Po Box 19519
2500 CM, The Hague
The Netherlands Ref
No reasonable military member can suggest these orders are lawful. Presidential orders to attack targets, but that targeting is knowingly connected to unreliable intelligence, are illegal orders.
These orders may not be lawfully followed; and the American government cannot lawfully enforce these Presidential orders. If prosecuted for committing war crimes in Iran, US Military personnel will have a difficult time showing it was reasonable to conclude these orders are lawful.
Civilian policy makers who have the power to influence and prevent illegal warfare, but who fail in their oath of office to end this illegal activity, can be lawfully prosecuted for war crimes.
Members of Congress, not just military personnel, can be lawfully arrested and tried for war crimes for failing to prevent, implement, and carry out illegal warfare.
Ref Retired Colonel reminds troops they have a duty to disobey illegal orders to attack Iran.
Ref US Miltary commanders reported ready to resign if ordered to attack Iran. [ Discuss ]
Ref War Crimes: Congress included funds in MCA to defend US Members of Congress, and other US goverment employees before The Hague and other international tribunals.
Ref Legal discussions underway to prosecute Members of Congress for refusing to prevent illegal warfare.
Ref Standards to gather information from the public related to illegal American warfare. [240 Communications received by prosecutor]
Ref ICC Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo has discussed prosecutions of Members of Congress; and seeks input how to execute arrest warrants.
Ref The intelligence is inaccurate. Commanders know the information is invalid. The US National Command authority cannot lawfully justify targeting Iran. They have no credible defense to war crimes.
Ref IAEA also distrusts US information.
Oath of Office: Obeying Only Lawful Orders
The proposed use of American forces in Iran is not lawful. Any American relying on these orders is not making a reasonable conclusion about their lawfulness.
No military person could reasonably rely on any Presidential order related to attacking Iran. It is illegal to implement, carry out, put into effect, or support any of these Presidential orders.
___ Following these orders may be adjudicated under the UCMJ to be a war crime;
___ US commanders, JAGs, and Court officials attempting to enforce these illegal orders may be committing war crimes under the Geneva Conventions.
The American President and his civilian policy advisers in Congress can't argue that a threat is imminent when the information is invalid; and it is known the information is unreliable.
The American leadership cannot credibly argue that is an imminent threat when there is time to (1) review the information; and (2) conclude it is not reliable. Inaccurate information in Iraq; now we have inaccurate information about Iran.
The laws of war require reasonable efforts to be taken to minimize civilian deaths. The US Commanders know, or should know, that the intelligence about Iran is not reliable.
The only "imminent" problem is the realization that there is no legal justification for the targeting; and an imminent detection of US war rimes.
___ What physical things is the US targeting?
Response: Non military, non-imminent threats, constituting war crimes. There is no basis for DoD Staff counsel or the JAGs to approve the target list. The information used to support the targeting is known to be dubious, unreliable, and cannot form the basis for a lawful attack.
___ Is there any basis to conclude these orders are lawful?
No. There is no basis for the President or anyone to argue these orders are lawful; nor can anyone credibly argue that they relied on orders they reasonably through were lawful. When the information is well known to be unreliable, military personnel should know those orders are not lawful.
No reasonable court would accept the argument that military personnel reasonably relied on something they believed was lawful, but the orders were known to be linked with invalide, unreliable information. The known unreliability of the information raises reasonable questions whether people should know that these orders are not lawful.
___ How can any military commander argue their planned attacks are lawful when it is known the intelligence used for that targeting is unreliable?
Response: They cannot. Planned targeting using known unreliable information is recklessness and a war crime.
___ How can the US say it is "minimizing" the chance of civilian deaths -- as required under Geneva -- when it is known that the targets being selected or not military targets; and the intelligence is not reliable?
Response: This is impossible and is a war crime. Unreliable information means the targets are not bonafide military targets or imminent threats; but merely targets of opportunity. For something to be an "imminent" threat, that threat must be certain, not speculative or asserted to be imminent on the basis of intelligence known to be unreliable. This targeting violates the principle of proportionality. This is a separate war crime punishable by the death penalty.
___ How can anyone credibly argue there is an "imminent" threat -- supposedly making it impossible to react or plan -- but there is time to know that imminence is illusory?
Response: They cannot. When information is known to be unreliable, then there is no basis to say there is a real threat; or that the threat is imminent. They've shifted focus form the threat, to whether the information is or isn't something.
___ How can the President argue he cannot afford the time to consult with Congress, but he does have time to explain away information which he knows, or should know is unreliable?
Response: This is an illegal violation of the US Constitution. Only the Congress can declare war. There is no basis for the President to suggest he has no time to review this issue with Congress; or that he must quickly do something without a declaration of war.