Posted by Paul W. Kincaid / PressCore – 2011-04-23 01:52:18

http://presscore.ca/2011/?p=1845

(March 30, 2011) — On March 18, 2011 the United States controlled UN Security Council approved Resolution 1973 — unlawfully authorizing unprovoked armed attacks against the territorial integrity and political independence of Libya. The resolution is a measure that has forever changed the United Nations’ official mandate from one of peace-making to one of war-mongering.

The US claims that the UN voted 10-0 for an unprovoked armed attacks against Libya. The fact remains that the vote was actually a 10-5 vote as 5 members of the Security Council (including two permanent members) voted against it by abstention.

Five of the World’s major powers and their majority populations abstained from voting. The abstention means that the majority of the World population and their countries of China, Russia, Germany, Brazil and India, objected to the bogus “humanitarian” resolution.

Humanitarian pertains to the saving of human lives, alleviating suffering and maintaining human dignity. How can a person claim to be saving lives when that same person is engaging in acts that are taking away lives? How can a person claim to be alleviating suffering when that same person causes even greater suffering? How can a person claim to be maintaining human dignity when that same person’s actions take away the dignity of an entire nation?

This is not, in any way, shape or form, a humanitarian resolution. It is a declaration of a war of aggression by the US, French, the UK and the Canadian governments against Libya and its people.

The UN resolution authorizing the US to go to war against Libya is illegal no matter how you look at it. It is illegal because it grossly violates numerous international laws including the United Nations own Charter and the North Atlantic Treaty. The US air strikes contradict the principles of the United Nations Charter and is thus deemed by International law to be a war of aggression.

The air strikes in Libya also violate the North Atlantic Treaty as Libya hasn’t attacked any NATO member state. NATO members are the ones engaging in an armed attack against Libya. All military attacks against Libya by the US, France, the UK and Canada are illegal because they are deemed by international laws and treaties to be unprovoked armed attacks against Libya.

Today instead of Gaddafi killing a handful of Libyan civilians and hundreds of foreign paid mercenaries in what is internationally recognized as being a purely domestic crisis the United States, France, the UK and Canada will be killing and displacing thousands, even as many as a million innocent Libyan civilians.

The US, France, the UK and Canada are replacing one murderer with their own coalition of mass murderers. These unlawful attacks are regarded by International law as crimes against peace and war crimes. This a war of aggression for territorial gain and oil subjugation.

The Constitution for the United States of America

Article I
Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power … To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and sea….

Legitimate authority has been abdicated by the US government by it’s brazen usurpation of the Constitution. The United States Constitution is the only legitimate grant of federal authority, and as it has in effect been made void by noncompliance, the authority is void as well.

United Nations Charter

Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

Article 51 — “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.

“Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”

The North Atlantic Treaty

Article 1
The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

A crime against peace, in international law, refers to “planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of wars of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing.” This definition of crimes against peace was first incorporated into the Nuremberg Principles and later included in the United Nations Charter.

This definition of the crime of aggression belongs to jus cogens, which is supreme in the hierarchy of international law and, therefore, it cannot be modified by, or give way to, any rule of international law but one of the same rank.

The “territorial integrity” rule means that it is a crime of aggression to use armed force with intent permanently to deprive a state of any part or parts of its territory, not excluding territories for the foreign affairs of which it is responsible;

The “political independence” rule means that it is a crime of aggression to use armed force with intent to deprive a state of the entirety of one or more of the prerequisites of statehood, namely: defined territory, permanent population, constitutionally independent government and the means of conducting relations with other States;

The “sovereignty” rule means that it is a crime of aggression to use armed force with intent to overthrow the government of a state or to impede its freedom to act unhindered, as it sees fit, throughout its jurisdiction.

1928, the Kellogg-Briand Pact, known as the General Treaty for the Renunciation of War, said:
 The High Contracting Parties solemnly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another.

The interdiction of aggressive war was confirmed and broadened by the United Nations’ Charter, which states in article 2, paragraph 4 that;

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

The US Army’s Law of Land Warfare (Field Manual 27-10) states:
 498. Crimes Under International Law — Any person, whether a member of the armed forces or a civilian, who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment. Such offenses in connection with war comprise:

a. Crimes against peace.

b. Crimes against humanity.

c. War crimes.

To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.
— Robert H. Jackson

The UN Resolution 1973 unlawfully authorized the US, French, the UK and Canadian government to mass murder the civilian population of Libya. Once again the UN has proven its worthlessness as a peace keeping organization. Once again the UN has proven its worthlessness as an unbiased representative of the international community. It is time to recognize the UN for what it really is. Its is clearly a branch of the United States government — to support and implement US foreign policy at any cost.

What does UN stand for today? The negative prefix un stands for unable, unclean, unequal, unsafe and more frequently to unrest. The UN is today universally recognized by the free World as a symbol of inability, inequality, injustice, and instability.

It is UN-democratic and anti-sovereignty as it claims to have the authority to override the territorial integrity and political independence of any state. It is unjust as it never drafts nor enforces resolutions against the obvious aggressors — United States, the UK, France, Canada and Israel — it only drafts and enforces resolutions against the victims of the aggressors. It is racists because it only supports and engages in military armed attacks against predominately non-white countries.

Isn’t it about time you added the UN to your country’s terrorist list? They are after all defined by the laws of several states as terrorists.

United States Code
Title 22, Chapter 38 — “Definitions … the term ‘terrorism’ means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;”

Title 18 “The term ‘international terrorism’ means activities that . . . involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; [and] appear to be intended . . . to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; . . . to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or . . . to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and [which] occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.”

Posted in accordance with Title 17, Section 107, US Code, for noncommercial, educational purposes.