Saudi Nuclear Program

The American government's inconsistent approach to Saudi Arabia and Iran sheds light on the abuse of power We the People have the duty, right, and power to lawfully end.

* * *

Ref Russia has offered to assist Saudi Arabia in developing nuclear power. The US is silent, yet when Iran did the same, the US was concerned. The US governments explanations for this inconsistency are frivolous pretexts to to abuse power.

Iran's under EU sanctions for developing nuclear power, yet Tehran is not legally required to do something it has no obligation to do -- cooperate with abusive accusations.

The US has accused Iran, with oil reserves, of "not needing" to develop nuclear power. Forget that VP Cheney in the Ford Administration pushed to expand nuclear power in Iran in the 1970s.

Saudi Arabia has, like Iran, proven oil reserves, yet is developing nuclear power. Let's see the White House and EU explain their positions:

___ When is the EU going to impose sanctions, as it did with Iran, on the Saudis for this nuclear program?

___ Could Saudi Arabia, "under threat" from Israel -- that can't defeat Hezbollah who has rudimentary rockets -- possibly use the Russian cooperation to secretly create nuclear weapons?

___ Why are the Saudis allowed to develop "peaceful" nuclear power, but the Iranians are not able to do the same?

* * *

The United States when it points to oil reserves as "proof" that Iran is or isn't doing something with nuclear power, cannot do the opposite with Saudi Arabia. If the Saudis are going to get a pass on IAES inspections, then Iran needs the same. However, if the Iranians -- who have not agreed to be bound by a treaty which the US has violated -- are required to endure sanctions despite doing nothing illegal, then Saudi Arabia needs to be put on the table for like sanctions.

The US refusal to consider that Saudi Arabia might do what Washington accuses Iran shows the American position is not based on facts, but religious preference for one type of faith over another. This is racist, arrogant, and hypocritical.

* * *

The US position on Iran, without comparison to anything, is not sustainable. However, when contrasted with a like program in Saudi Arabia, puts Washington in a less favorable light.

Just as the President has suggested that Iran "might" be doing something, he need only look at the real evidence of who was behind the 9-11 attacks: Not Saddam, not Iraq, and not Iran -- but the Saudis.

* * *

American citizens are being told, not asked, to embrace the fiction that we live in a "new world". we are told, not asked, to endure abusive violations of our rights, illegal warfare, and a buffoon Congress that can't think about war crimes or impeachment.

This American government likes to pretend it has the monopoly on deciding who is or isn't doing things, regardless the facts.

Everything the US has ever done, said, threatened, implied, or insinuated about Iran is more applicable to Saudi Arabia. Consider the facts, and contrast them with the illusion of Iran:

1. Terrorism

___ Which nation was linked with the 9-11 attacks?

Saudi Arabia, not Iran.

___ Which nation, which has impermissibly permitted its nation and citizens to train for terrorism, was affirmatively linked with the deaths of over 3,000 Americans?

Saudi Arabia, not Iran.

2. Oil

___ Which nation, with proven oil reserves, is developing nuclear power?

Iran, Saudi Arabia, Britain, and the United States.

3. Military forces

___ Which nation, despite no imminent threat, is illegally expanding its use of force based on false evidence, and illegal warfare?

Not Iran, but the United States.

4. Matching principle

Putting aside the reality that power is abused without consistency,let's pretend the Arguments the US makes in one case should be applicable in all cases.

___ What is the plan for the US to attack the UK because of its "inexplicable" development of nuclear power despite "proven" oil reserves in the North Sea?

As with Iran, oil appears to be a finite resource. Alternatives are required, especially when the price of oil is increasing. It makes more sense for the Iranians to hold onto their oil, use other energy, so that as oil supplies dwindle, they can sell their oil at a higher price. This isn't a military question, but an economic question that Iran alone has the authority to decide. Iran is sovereign; that the US doesn't like what Iran is doing -- regardless the reasons -- is meaningless.

___ When is the US going to attack Ireland because weapons in Iraq have been linked with Irish nationals?

For the US to assert that all nations linked with any munitions in Iraq shall be attack flies in the face of NATO obligations. The US, through NATO, has promised to jointly defend Ireland, not use Irish support for insurgents fighting illegal US warfare as a pretext to invade NATO allies in Dublin.

* * *

The US actions on Iran -- where there is no evidence of illegal activity -- are wholly discredited when contrasted with the Saudi nuclear program.

The silence from Washington is noted and is, in the mind of many, the hypocrisy of American bullying toward Iran, but complicity with Saudi immunity to accountability for direct links to 9-11.

The world views the US silence on the Saudi nuclear program as more evidence the US isn't really concerned about Iranian nuclear power, but in making excuses to bully nations.

* * *

Cheney's Psychology

The US conflict with Iran has little to do with energy, but with the Vice President's ego. Once Nixon was discredited, Ford, as he should have done, assented to Congressional domination.

Cheney's problem is that Iranian students, not the government, brought the United States government to its knees when it seized, detained, and held the US embassy for 444 days; and US military forces failed to solve the problem.

One would think Cheney, seeing how vulnerable the United States was, would reach out to oppressed people and remove the basis for them to strike at American interests. Cheney did the opposite, fueling more of what happened in Tehran in 1979.

They way forward is to see the psychology driving Cheney, but reminding him that his selective cherry picking of the law also applies to his selective cherry picking on history. Iran may have embarrassed the United States, but the Saudis have well exceeded the criteria the vice President has laid down to justify an attack.

* * *

America was told, not asked, after Sept 2001 to accept that there was a new world. Americans were told to put up with illegal activity, but given less security.

A new world, in Cheney's mind, should have consistently applied the standards applied to one, to all. This did not happen.

While claiming the US was fighting terrorism, the US abandoned the fight in Afghanistan.

While claiming that Iran did not need nuclear power, the US remained silent when the Saudis did the same.

While claiming that nations who support terrorism should be punished, the US was silent about the Saudi and Israeli abuses.

* * *

The Vice President cannot credibly claim he is concerned with American security or lives when he and others in the GOP put at risk American civilians' lives. Under the laws of war, when the US expands illegal warfare, foreign fighters may legally attack and reciprocate against US targets. The precedent of Dresden and Tokyo may give, in the mind of some lawful combatants, the view that the US -- like Japan and Germany -- can only be stopped when American civilians are attacked.

The Vice President has personality issues he needs to resolve with a counselor. It is inappropriate for him to use the political and international stage for him to work through various cognitive theories. Rather than expose American civilians to his absurd, warped thinking, it would be appropriate for the American public to call for him to resign and resolve his problems in private.

* * *

Where there is no public rebuke on Israel for its abuse of power against the Palestinians, there can be not Peace.

Where the US claims it is fighting those who supported 9-11 attacks, but refuses to target Saudi Arabia, there is no consistency.

Where the US claims that an oil rich nation cannot be permitted to develop nuclear power, but is silent on Saudi efforts, there is no reasonableness.

Where the US claims that we are in a new era and must prevent abuse of power, but exports abuse, and compels Americans to be silent about the war crimes by this President, there is unlawful complicity.

Where the US claims that the US is the leader of the free world, but that freedom comes at the cost of liberty, the Constitution, and US prestige, there is no credibility.

Where the US claims nations must be forced to abide by standards, but the US ignores the standards it freely agrees applies, there is no respect for the rule of law.

Where the US claims that those providing material support to forces engaging the US illegal occupation should be attacked or thwarted, but there is no rebuke of Ireland or Pakistan, there is no respect for the principle of enforcement.

* * *

American citizen may wish to consider the inconsistency between the US treatment of Iran and Saudi Arabia on the nuclear issue.

Going forward, because of the inconsistency, all Americans should be mindful that the excuses this President and Vice President will give to rationalize what is not reasonable are as frivolous as the reasons given to justify illegal warfare or constitutional violations.

The legal community working for this President and Vice President have enough problems of their own making. They do not have the time to develop legal arguments defending a policy on Saudi Arabia, while doing the opposite with Iran.

For that, the American legal community must be compelled to craft a clean story explaining in detail why the President and Vice President's positions on Iran meet one standard; while the same position on Saudi Arabia meets a second standard.

There is one answer: The US is not concerned with standards, but with asserting power without regard to standards. That is abuse and cannot be permitted to continue.

* * *

What You Can Do

Turn the President's words on Iran back on him and compel him to explain his inconsistent position with Saudi Arabia. His responses will not make sense.

Compel the EU to explain why it is not imposing sanctions on Saudi Arabia. There inconsistencies are not supportable.

Compel the Vice President to explain his change of position on whether Iran can or cannot develop nuclear power. He has no answer.

Compel the US State Department to explain the inconsistency between the US policies toward Saudi Arabia, as it relates to 9-11, and then contrast it with what the US is saying Iran must do. There is no reasonable explanation.

Compel the Congress to explain its silent assent on the President’s abuses toward Iran, but their willingness to remain silent on Saudi Arabia, as they have been with Israel. The inconsistency defies logic.

* * *

The issue is not US policy, what Iran is or is not doing, nor nuclear power, nor what the Saudis or Israelis are or are not doing.

The issue is one thing: Power.

The entire Us legal community and Members of Congress have been complicit with illegal use of power and unlawful US military use of force. The issues of rendition, NSA assets, prisoner treatment, secret prisons, and illegal warfare in Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism. That is an excuse. The illegal abuse of power started before 9-11.

* * *

The American Congress is deluding itself. The US abuse of power is something they can debate, end, and punish. The Congress refuses to do what it has the power to do: End illegal warfare.

The issue with Saudi Arabia and Iran with respect to nuclear power is a symptom of a flawed, defective, and reckless US government approach to power.

We the People did not delegate to the President or Vice President or Congress the power to compel violations of standards against one; but complicity with violations of standards against another.

This American government is making excuses to abuse power against American citizens and the world community. This is not acceptable. It shall end, either by law or through the use of lawful combat forces.

Congress and the Executive Branch have no credibility when they whine about some threats which are illusory, but are silent about real threats which do grave damage to American peace and security: The President's illegal abuse of power warranting impeachment.

* * *

Congress has the tools to solve this problem. It refuses to use them.

We the People have the tools to solve them, and are using them:

___ Lawful delegations of power and authority to foreign fighters, through the Geneva conventions, to wage lawful war against the reckless US government;

___ Lawful assertion of power at the State level to prosecute US Federal officials who engage in illegal activity;

___ Lawful assertion of State Power to raise a militia and lawfully seize, detain, and export to The Hague US government officials who have been complicity with war crimes;

___ Lawful State proclamations calling for the US House of Representatives to investigate and impeach the President and Vice President.

* * *

The US government is on the wrong side of the law. The issues with Iran and Saudi Arabia are not related to something complicated or what changed after Sept 2001.

The events relate, in part, to what the Vice President was unable to prevent in 1979. Rather than choose to reach out to those who abused him, this Vice President has induced the DoJ Staff and legal community to be complicit with expansive, illegal abuse. These are war crimes.

It was wrong after WWI for Hitler to use the defeat to mobilize a nation to wage expansive, illegal, aggressive war. Cheney has done the same as Hitler, but he suffers from a fatal problem: We the People.

The more this Vice President lashes outs over his insecurity linked with 1979, the more evidence there is. Regardless Member of Congress inaction, the States are mobilized. They are discussing. Legal options are on the table.

US forces cannot be compelled to defend illegal violations of the Constitution; nor remain complicit with domestic threats to the US Constitution.

There is a showdown coming. If Congress refuses to Confront the President, the States have the legal authority, in defense of the Constitution, to lawfully seize, prosecute, and render to The Hague the President and Vice President for war crimes adjudication.

* * *

The National Command Authority, Central Security Service, and National Security Council must decide whether it is for the Constitution, or this illegal rebellion led by the Vice President and President.

The rule of law shall prevail. The abuse of power shall end. The question is whether the Congress and National Command Authority will voluntarily surrender and end this abuse of power; or whether they shall be deemed unlawful enemy combatants, engaged in illegal rebellion, and subject to lawful adjudication for war crimes.

Congress is not alone in its power to do or not do something. All fifty states have the power to legally raise a militia, lawfully enter the District of Columbia, and restore order.

The first shots were fired when this President, before Sept 2001, decided he alone would violate the law and unlawfully use military force against civilians. Today's events in 2007 are a natural consequence of the President's abuse of power.

It doesn't matter what reasons Members of Congress have been inducted to accept or believe. The results are not acceptable. The Constitution is impermissibly left in an inferior state.

* * *

Iran and Saudi Arabia are symptoms of simple problem: The abuse of power. Our Constitution was designed to contain, not enable, this abuse.

It appears the steps required to protect the Constitution are large. This is an illusion. The remedy means lawfully destroying the US government, and recasting it as something that shall do, through institutional changes, what the Framers through decent people, through self-interest, would do: Assert power.

The American Government has failed because it has enjoyed privilege without consequences; and enjoyed the idea of the Republic without the costs.

Americans are bearing the cost of a failed Republic: Illegal activity, war crimes, and further indecencies upon our Peace.

The costs for this abuse of power shall be borne by the US government: It shall be transformed into something that works, and does not abuse power. The Congress has the choice -- whether it will voluntarily end what is illegal, and transform to what is needed; or whether that needed transformation shall be through law or the lawful use of combat forces directed at the Nation's leaders who illegally violate the laws of war.

* * *

Where power is abused and the legal process ignored, foreign fighters may legally reciprocate. The lawful use of force is not limited to foreigners. Domestic forces may legally, in the name of the Constitution, lawfully rise and compel a resolution.

The oath compels a defense of the Constitution. This does not mean remaining silent or complicit with illegal warfare. Rather, it means We the People have the legal rights, duty, and obligation to do something few imagined might return to the American soil: The legal right, duty, and obligation to lawfully use power to compel the US government to end its illegal rebellion against the US Constitution and rule of law.

We may do this, and shall continue. The rule of law shall prevail.