We were also signatories of the Geneva Convention and the Universal Declaration for Human Rights.
BUSH OKS MORE WAR & TORTURE
Even cruel punishment of children approved by top Neocon advisor
Ex-Fighter Pilot Explains to Military Men Why It’s Their Duty to Disobey Orders for Genocide
By Robert M. Bowman, Ph.D., Lt. Col., USAF, retired
You are facing challenges in 2007 that we of previous generations never dreamed of. I’m just an old fighter pilot (101 combat missions in Vietnam) who’s now a disabled veteran with terminal cancer from Agent Orange.
Our mailing list (over 22,000) includes veterans from all branches of the service, all political parties, and all parts of the political spectrum. What unites us is our desire for a government that follows the Constitution, honors the truth, and serves the people.
We see our government going down the wrong path, all too often ignoring military advice, and heading us toward great danger. And we look to you who still serve as the best hope for protecting our nation from disaster.
We see the current Iraq war as having been unnecessary, entered into under false pretenses, and horribly mismanaged by the civilian authorities. Thousands of our brave troops have been needlessly sacrificed in a futile attempt at occupation of a hostile land. Many more thousands have suffered wounds which will change their lives forever. Tens of thousands have severe psychological problems because of what they have seen and what they have done. Potentially hundreds of thousands could be poisoned by depleted uranium, with symptoms appearing years later, just as happened to us exposed to Agent Orange.
The military services are depleted and demoralized. The VA system is under-funded and overwhelmed. The National Guard and Reserves have been subjected to tour after tour, disrupting lives for even the lucky ones who return intact. Jobs have been lost, marriages have been destroyed, homes have been foreclosed on, and children have been estranged. And for what? We have lost allies, made new enemies and created thousands of new terrorists, further endangering the American people.
But you know all this. I’m sure you also see the enormous danger in a possible attack on Iran, possibly with nuclear weapons. Such an event, seriously contemplated by the Cheney faction of the Bush administration, would make enemies of Russia and China and turn us into the No. 1 rogue nation on Earth. The effect on our long-term national security would be devastating.
Some of us had hoped that the new Democratic Congress would end the occupation of Iraq and take firm steps to prevent an attack on Iran, perhaps by impeaching Bush and Cheney. These hopes have been dashed. The lily-livered Democrats have caved in, turning their backs on those few like Rep. Jack Murtha (DPa.) who understand the situation. Many of us have personally walked the halls of Congress, to no avail. This is where you come in.
Many of you share our concern and our determination to protect our republic from an arrogant, out-of-control, imperial presidency and a compliant, namby pamby Congress (both of which are unduly influenced by the oil companies and other big-money interests).
You, like us, wouldn’t have pursued a military career unless you were idealistic and devoted to our nation and its people. (None of us does it for the pay and working conditions.) But you may not see how you can influence these events. We in the military have always had a historic subservience to civilian authority.
Our oath of office is to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” This includes a rogue president and vice president. Certainly we are bound to carry out the legal orders of our superiors. But the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) which binds all of us enshrines the Nuremberg Principles which this country established after World War II (which you are too young to remember).
One of those Nuremberg Principles says that we in the military have not only the right, but also the duty, to refuse an illegal order. It was on this basis that we executed Nazi officers who were “only carrying out their orders.”
The Constitution that we are sworn to uphold says that treaties entered into by the United States are the “highest law of the land,” equivalent to the Constitution itself. Accordingly, we in the military are sworn to uphold treaty law, including the United Nations Charter and the Geneva Conventions.
Based on the above, I contend that should some civilian order you to initiate a nuclear attack on Iran (for example), you are duty-bound to refuse that order. You should consider whether the circumstances demand that you arrest whoever gave the order as a war criminal.
I know for a fact that in recent history (once under Nixon and once under Reagan), the military nuclear chain of command in the White House discussed these things and was prepared to refuse an order to “nuke Russia.”
In effect they took the (non-existent) “button” out of the hands of the president. We were thus never quite as close toWorldWar III as many feared, no matter how irrational any president might have become. They determined that the proper response to any such order was, “Why, sir?” Unless there was (in their words) a “damn good answer,” nothing was going to happen.
If you in this generation have not had such a discussion, it is time you do. In hindsight, it’s too bad such a discussion did not take place prior to the preemptive “shock and awe” attack on Baghdad. Many of us at the time spoke out vehemently that such an attack would be an impeachable offense, a war crime against the people of Iraq and treason against the United States. But our voices never reached the ears of the generals in 2003.
President Bush could be court-martialed for abuse of power as commander-in-chief. Vice President Cheney could probably be court-martialed for his performance as acting commander-in-chief in the White House bunker the morning of Sept. 11, 2001.
We in the military would never consider a military coup, removing an elected president and installing one of our own. But following our oath of office, obeying the Nuremberg Principles and preventing a rogue president from committing a war crime is not a military coup.
If it requires the detention of executive branch officials, we will not impose a military dictatorship. We will let the constitutional succession take place.
Robert M. Bowman, Ph.D., Lt. Col., USAF, retired
National Commander, The Patriots
(Issue #43, October 22, 2007)
The Oil Monarchs: George W. Bush and his Royal Kin
By Christopher Bollyn – American Free Press
While President George W. Bush is portrayed in the mass media as the chief architect of the plan to conquer Iraq, his family’s intimate connection with those oil-rich European royals who also support him is seldom discussed.
On a daily basis the mainstream media presents expert opinions as to who is behind the military campaign against Iraq and why. Lately there has been a flurry of editorials seeking to debunk the notion that the major British and American oil companies are behind the planned conquest of Iraq and its rich oil fields. What is never discussed, however, is the kinship between President George W. Bush and the European royals who support the U.S.-led campaign against Iraq.
There are basically two schools of thought among those who do not accept the official reasoning for war against Iraq. The first is that the conquest of Iraq’s oil resources is an agenda being pushed by the major oil companies and their agents in the British and U.S. governments. The second is that Israel and its supporters, seeking to further the Zionist agenda, are the true architects behind the war of aggression being planned against the most populous Arab state.
While these two theories are usually presented as being mutually exclusive, the secret networks that exist between the government leaders in the United States and Britain, “Big Oil” and Israel indicate they are connected and appear to be part of a master plan.
The huge anti-war protests of Feb. 15 clearly demonstrated that a significant majority, estimated to be 80 percent, of the people in Europe are strongly opposed to war in Iraq. The largest protests were seen in those nations that have allied themselves with the U.S. war policy on Iraq: namely Britain, Spain, and Italy.
With so many Europeans opposed to war, the question being asked is: “Who is supporting the Bush policy, and why?”
Tony Blair, the British prime minister, is Bush’s staunchest and most visible ally in the campaign against Iraq. Blair has long taken an aggressive position on Iraq and says it was the first thing he discussed with the new president after Bush was declared winner of the flawed election of 2000.
While Blair’s intimate relationship with the Anglo-American oil giant British Petroleum (BP) should be a matter of discussion in the context of his war policy against Iraq, it is seldom mentioned in the main steam British press.
Blair’s “New Labor” policies are now more closely connected to both Big Oil, particularly BP, and Israel, than they are with the British working class. The close links between BP, which was originally known as the Anglo-Persian Oil Co. having been founded to exploit Iranian oil reserves, and Blair’s politics have led to the company being dubbed “Blair Petroleum.”
During his first term, Blair appointed then chairman of BP, Lord Simon, to be trade minister in May 1997. A controversy surfaced when it emerged that Simon still owned a considerable shareholding in the company.
BP’s current chief executive Lord John Browne, whose mother was an “Auschwitz survivor,” is also said to be “close to the prime minister.” Blair added a peerage to Browne’s knighthood after he helped end fuel protests in Britain.
Anji Hunter, Blair’s former secretary and close friend, was said to “be among New Labor friends” when she left government to take the position as director of communications at BP in November 2001. Hunter went to school with Blair and has worked with him continuously since 1986.
“There is a bit of a revolving door,” says Norman Baker, a Liberal Democrat member of parliament who has looked into the ties between BP and the Blair government. The connections are probably more extensive than with any other UK company, Baker said.
One of Blair’s closest allies is Lord Michael Levy. Levy serves as one of the most important fundraisers for the Labor Party and Blair’s unofficial envoy to the Middle East, according to Red Star Research of London, which investigates the ties of Blair’s New Labor to Big Oil – and Israel.
Levy reportedly met Blair at a dinner party in 1994 held by Gideon Meir, a senior Israeli diplomat, and became his tennis partner. Levy was put in charge of donations to the ‘private trust,’ which funded Blair’s office before the 1997 election (which reached more than $10 million), and is now the chief fundraiser for the ‘high value’ donors account at the Labor Party. He is reported to have raised $18 million for the ‘high value’ fund before the 1997 election, and became known as ‘Mr. Cashpoint’, according to Red Star Research.
While President Bush’s war policy is strongly opposed by the leaders of Europe’s largest republics, Germany, France, and Russia, he is supported by those nations where royal families are still in power, or close to it: Britain, Spain, The Netherlands, and Bulgaria. What the U.S. mainstream media fails to mention is that he is actually related to the royal families of those European states where his policy on Iraq is supported.
As the media reported during the election of 2000, Bush is closely related to every European monarch on and off the throne and has kinship with every member of Britain’s royal family, the House of Windsor.
Saxe-Coburg Gotha is the true name of Britain’s royal family, but the name was changed to hide their German ancestry during the First World War.
Bush has more ties to European royalty than other president to date, having “blue blood” from both his paternal and maternal lines. His mother, Barbara Pierce Bush, is related to European royalty through the Pierce family, which also produced the fourteenth U.S. president, Franklin Pierce (1853-1857).
Harold Brooks-Baker of London’s Burke Peerage says Bush’s royal connections are startling. “Bush is closely related to every European monarch both on and off the throne,” Baker told American Free Press.
“They are cousins.” Baker said when asked about the relationship between Bush and the Bulgarian prime minister, Simeon Saxe-Coburg Gotha, who visited the White House on Feb. 25. Gotha is the former King of Bulgaria who was returned to power after decades spent in exile.
About the apparent close relationship between Bush and the Spanish king, Juan Carlos, Baker said: “They know they are related.” Asked why the media fails to report these family ties, Brooks-Baker said, “The American public does not know who these kings are. Not one person in a thousand has any idea who these people are.”
“Mr. Gore and Mr. Bush have an unusually large number of royal and noble descents,” Baker said during the election campaign of 2000. “In point of fact, never in the history of the United States have two presidential candidates been as well endowed with royal alliances.”
There has always been a significant “royalty factor” in those who aspired to the White House, with Presidents George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Franklin and Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, among some 30 other presidents, all boasting blue blood links.
Asked if the support of the European royals for Bush’s war policy could be attributed to the fact that these families are heavily invested in the leading oil companies, Brooks-Baker said, “That’s an interesting question. Indeed, Royal Dutch Shell petroleum made Queen Beatrix of Holland one of the richest women in the world. She owns more land in New York and the United States than any other foreigner.”
Queen Beatrix, the matriarch of the secretive Bilderberg group, is like Queen Elisabeth of Britain and is not allowed to play a public role in political matters. Behind the scenes, however, these monarchs continue to exercise political influence.
Asked if he thought that kinship with the European royals was the reason for their support of Bush’s war policy, Brooks-Baker said: “I don’t think there is any question about it. These people are obsessed with supporting relations. It has a great deal to do with it. They all work together as one family.”