ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, ON KZYX, FRIDAY, SEPT 6 @ 9 AM, PACIFIC TIME (UPDATE, WITH VIDEO )
Watch Next News Network's YouTube video of law professor, Francis Boyle, who was this morning's guest on KZYX:
* * *
What is it about the U.S. and the "business of war"?
Why has war been the engine of the U.S. economy since WWII? Why is there example after example of the U.S. falsifying, and even fabricating, the reasons for war?
And isn't that an impeachable offense?
Let's take a closer look at the issue.
* * *
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, ON KZYX, FRIDAY, SEPT 6, AT 9 AM, PACIFIC TIME
"All About Money" returns to KZYX on Friday, September 6, at 9 AM, Pacific Time, with a special edition show on the impending U.S. attack on Syria and the "business of war".
Guests are John Quigley, professor emeritus of international law at Ohio State University and author of The Ruses for War: American Interventionism Since World War II, and Francis Boyle, professor at the University of Illinois College of Law and author of Tackling America's Toughest Questions.
Our broadcasts are heard at 88.1, 90.7, and 91.5 FM in the Counties of Mendocino., Lake Humboldt, and Sonoma in northern California. We also stream live from the web at www.kzyx.org
MP3 links to shows may be found on the show's blog at the KZYX website. Shows are also archived at KZYX.
Professor emeritus of international law at Ohio State University, Quigley recently wrote a piece scrutinizing the legal justifications for an attack on Syria: "John Quigley on Intervention."
He is author of the book The Ruses for War: American Interventionism Since World War II. In addition to the false claims being used to drive the U.S. to war in Iraq, he cites numerous other examples of the U.S. government making such claims:
* In 1998, the U.S. government told the UN Security Council that it had launched missiles against Khartoum, Sudan, because VX nerve gas was being produced at a factory there. In fact, no nerve gas was being produced there, as later acknowledged by administration officials.
* In 1993, after it launched missiles at the headquarters of the Iraqi intelligence service in Baghdad, the U.S. government told the Council that the circuitry found in a Renault (vehicle) at the Iraq-Kuwait border was of a type that linked it to the Iraqi intelligence service, and that the Renault was part of a plot to assassinate George Bush, who was then visiting Kuwait. As later analysis showed, the circuitry was not of a type that showed a connection to the Iraqi intelligence service.
* In 1964, it told the Council that U.S. vessels had been attacked by Vietnamese vessels in international waters in the Gulf of Tonkin. This information was based on reports from U.S. vessels that the vessels’ commander soon said were in error. Nonetheless, the State Department used the information before the Council and relied on it as a major rationale for a military buildup in Vietnam.
* In 1954, when the elected government of Guatemala was overthrown militarily by Guatemalan military officers, the U.S. was charged before the Council with organizing the coup. It denied to the Council any involvement. In fact it organized the coup.
* On three occasions, it told the Council it was invading other states because U.S. nationals were in danger there: Dominican Republic 1965, Grenada 1983, Panama 1989. In none of these instances were U.S. nationals in danger.
Boyle is a professor at the University of Illinois College of Law and author of Tackling America’s Toughest Questions. He said today: "The test the Dossier [PDF] uses is 'high confidence' -- but the appropriate standard by the International Court of Justice (in the Corfu Channel case) is 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' The Dossier notes that it does not 'confirm' the allegations against Syria. So the U.S. intelligence community refuses to 'confirm' that the Syrian government did it.
"Kerry claimed in his remarks: 'We assess that the opposition has not used chemical weapons.' But Carla del Ponte of the UN commission said they did. See: BBC: 'UN's Del Ponte says evidence Syria rebels "used sarin"' Similarly, Kerry claimed 'We intercepted communications involving a senior official...' But the Wall Street Journal already reported that came from Israeli intelligence."
Future guests on our show on the subject of impeachment will include:
Available for a limited number of interviews, Ratner is president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights. He said today: "Almost the only good thing about the Senate Foreign Relations Committee resolution [PDF] on Syria is that the vote to pass it was not overwhelming and that three Democrats abandoned the administration. Perhaps the worst single clause in it was a reaffirmation of the illegal power Obama claims he has to bomb Syria without congressional approval: 'the President has authority under the Constitution to use force in order to defend the national security interests of the United States.' No such authority exists -- except in self-defense -- and the vague term 'national security interests' hardly meets that standard.
Ratner continues, "The operative clause setting forth the terms of the authorization -- the basis on which military force can be employed -- is open ended and vague enough to allow Obama a blank check to make war on Syria: Obviously, allowing Obama to use armed force as he 'determines to be necessary and appropriate' is not a limitation. That open ended grant is not helped by the claimed limitation to use such force 'to degrade Syria’s capacity to use such force in the future” or to “deter Syria’s use of such weapons.' Obama could decide that all-out war including the overthrow of the government of Syria is necessary to meet those objectives. He could also decide that those allies who supply Syria with weapons that have a dual use need to be stopped. Does that meaning bombing Iran and Russia if they are supplying such weapons? This is not a stretch. We have the example of the interpretation given by both Bush and Obama to the AUMF regarding the perpetrators of 9/11. Although supposedly restricted to those involved in that crime, that authorization has led to war almost anywhere the administration wants: Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia.
Ratner goes on to say, "The resolution is filed with other lies and omissions including the claim of clear and compelling evidence that the Assad government employed chemical weapons on August 21 -- when the evidence is not conclusive; an utter failure to address the brutality of the rebels and the Russian report that on March 19, 2013 the rebels used chemical weapons. An irony in the resolution is the claim that Syria has violated its legal obligations under the UN charter -- this in the very resolution that will allow the use of military force without obtaining the necessary UN Security Council imprimatur.
Ratner concludes, "My hope is that the closeness of the vote is an indicator that authorization to use force will not make it through Congress; it would be a tragedy if it did." See the just-posted Real News segment with Ratner: "U.S. Attack On Syria Violates International Law."
Professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and former president of the National Lawyers Guild, Cohn said today: "Even if Congress votes to give Obama authority to launch a military attack on Syria, it would still be illegal under the United Nations Charter. That is because the Security Council has not approved military action, and Syria has not attacked or threatened to attack any other country so the United States would not be acting in lawful self-defense. The Charter does not allow a military attack for punishment.
Cohn continues, "Moreover, Obama would be hard pressed to certify to Congress that the United States has 'used all appropriate diplomatic and other peaceful means' to prevent the deployment of chemical weapons, which is a prerequisite to the use of force under the Senate Foreign Relations Committee resolution. The U.S. should work toward a negotiated ceasefire and political resolution, urge its allies to stop arms shipments to Syria, and urge Russia to urge its allies to stop sending arms to Syria. There are questions about whether it was the Assad government that used chemical weapons in Syria. Regardless, the use of chemical weapons constitutes a war crime. Obama should urge the Council to refer the issue to the International Criminal Court, which is competent to prosecute war crimes." Cohn recently cowrote the piece "Killing Civilians to Protect Civilians in Syria."
Professor Francis Boyle: IMPEACH OBAMA NOW!!! -- #N3
You've seen them all over the country. Overpasses full of signs and people calling for the Impeachment of president obama. Some have even got arrested for ex...