Honor veterans? Then demand arrests of .01% US War Criminals lying our military into OBVIOUS illegal Wars of Aggression that kill millions, harm billions, loot trillions | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED

Honor veterans? Then demand arrests of .01% US War Criminals lying our military into OBVIOUS illegal Wars of Aggression that kill millions, harm billions, loot trillions

Current and ongoing US military armed attacks on several nations are the opposite of lawful, and all started with lies known to be false as they are told.

This essay explains, documents and proves illegal and lie-started Wars of Aggression that active US military are trained to refuse engagement because there are no lawful orders for illegal Wars of Aggression.
The costs of these War Crimes include millions killed, billions harmed, and trillions looted.

US military veterans “served” these illegal attacks by .01% lying sacks-of-spin political and media “leaders.” Obviously, the responsible citizen will demand .01% arrests for War Crimes.

This essay’s central facts was published by The Claremont Colleges after a 2015 international conference for ~2,000 people, and I continue to reframe its contents until the wars are ended.

“It is no use trying to escape their arrogance by submission or good behavior. Robbers of the world, having by universal plunder exhausted the land, their drive is greed. If the enemy be rich, they are rapacious; if poor, they lust for domination. Neither rule of the East nor West can satisfy them. Alone among men, they crave with equal eagerness poverty and riches. To plunder, slaughter, seize with false pretenses, they give the lying name ‘empire.’ And where nothing remains but a desert, they call that ‘peace.’ ”
~ Tacitus, The Agricola and the Germania, on Roman Empire foreign wars in "self-defense" (analyses here, here)


The United States is the most dangerous illegal rogue state empire in human history. The escalating military armed attacks under President Trump we witness in the present is a continuation of illegal Wars of Aggression, the worst action a nation can take and taxpayers to fund.

Among the damning facts:
People around the world view the US as the greatest threat to peace; voted three times more dangerous than any other country.
Since WW2, Earth has had 248 armed conflicts. The US started 201 of them.
These US armed attacks have killed ~30 million and counting; 90% of these deaths are innocent children, the elderly and ordinary working civilian women and men (and here). The US has war-murdered more than Hitler’s Nazis.
The total deaths caused by rogue state empire for resource control (natural and human) in the last 20 years is over 400 million, more than all total wars and violence in all recorded Earth history.
The annual number of poverty deaths would create a volume of human corpses equal to the volume of the Freedom Tower in NYC.
Since Operation O.I.L. (Operation Iraqi Liberation; yes, that was the oligarchs’ first name), 2.4 million Iraqis have been killed as a direct consequence.
But these "current events" unknown to most Americans today continues a treaty-violating history of illegal US wars to control resources (natural and human) also unknown to most Americans.
US so-called “leadership” is arguably worse in corruption, psychopathy, and causing misery than tragic-comic Roman Emperors, certainly with greater capacity to harm. Obviously, among required citizen responses is public demand to lawfully arrest US .01% "leaders" for lie-started and Orwellian-illegal Wars of Aggression, as the contents of this essay prove beyond all reasonable doubt.

Table of Contents:
What war law states in non-controversial crystal-clear letter and intent
Not only not-even-close to lawful, but started with “reasons” known to be lies as they were told
Looting tens of trillions in taxes and resources (human and natural)
Breaking the Emperor’s New Clothes naked parade with three analogies
Endgame: US military, government employees, and real Americans demanding .01% arrests as OBVIOUS lawful remedy to stop war-murdering millions, harming billions, looting trillions
1. War law: crystal-clear in letter and intent

“No treaty, however much it may be to the advantage of all, however tightly it may be worded, can provide absolute security against the risks of deception and evasion.”
~ President Kennedy, June 10, 1963

Summary: Military armed attack in another nation is illegal in all cases except in reasonable self-defense against that nation’s government’s current armed attack on your nation, or provable imminent threat. All other security concerns go the United Nations Security Council. Self-defense with lethal force is always authorized if known or unknown attackers are engaged in armed attacks in your own nation. This is exactly consistent with the US Army’s official law handbook.

This is similar to the law for individuals: we can never attack another person unless under attack or imminent threat (“I’m gonna’ pull this gun and shoot you!” etc.). And we certainly can never go to another person’s house to attack people and/or property; we must go to the police for their jurisdiction. In general legal definition, no party is allowed use of force under the justification of “self-defense” if the law can be applied for redress and remedy.

The following is an update from published research by The Claremont Colleges of a 2015 paper I delivered for ~2,000 people. We scholars active on this topic of Orwellian-illegal US/UK/Israel Wars of Aggression are unaware of any attempt to refute our factual claims. That is, nobody we’ve ever heard or read has claimed something relevant like, “War law states (a, b, c), and the wars are legal because (d, e, f).” We welcome any information that refutes our factual claims, and seek public debate to make our factual claims clear. The same argument applies that all “reasons” for the US to attack and invade were known lies as they were told.

War law letter and intent: The US/UK/Israel “official story” is that current wars are lawful because they are “self-defense.” The Emperor’s New Clothes fact here is that “self-defense” means something quite narrow and specific in war law, and US/UK/Israel armed attacks on so many nations in current and past wars are not even close to the definition of “self-defense.

Proving unlawful wars with massive deception is easier when the scope is broadened to see the same elements in three cases:
Ignore war law.
Lie to blame the victim and claim “self-defense.”
“Officials” and corporate media collude to never mention war law, despite two world wars all our families dearly sacrificed for their creation to make military armed attacks illegal.
Two world wars begat two treaties to end nations’ armed attacks forever. They are crystal-clear in content and context:
Kellogg-Briand Pact (General treaty for renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy as official title)
United Nations Charter.
Both are listed in the US State Department’s annual publication, Treaties in Force (2013 edition pages 466 and 493).

Article Six of the US Constitution defines a treaty as US “supreme Law of the Land;” meaning that US policy may only complement an active treaty, and never violate it. This is important because all of us with Oaths to the US Constitution are sworn to honorably refuse all unlawful war orders; military officers are sworn to arrest those who issue them. Indeed, we suffer criminal dishonor if we obey orders for armed attack when they are not “self-defense,” and family dishonor to so easily reject the legal victory won from all our families’ sacrifices through two world wars.

Treaty 1. Kellogg-Briand: General treaty for renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy:
The legal term renounce means to surrender access; that is, to remove that which is renounced as lawful option. This active treaty (page 466 “Renunciation of War”), usually referenced as the Kellogg-Briand Pact, states:

The High Contracting Parties solemly 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 High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.”

Treaty 2. United Nations Charter:
It’s helpful to understand what the UN is not. The only area of legal authority of the UN is security/use of force; all other areas are advise for individual nation’s legislature’s consideration. The UN is not global government. It is a global agreement to end wars of choice outside of a very narrow legal definition of national self-defense against another nation’s armed attack.

The preamble of the United Nations includes to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war… to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and… to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used…”

The UN purpose includes: “To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace…”

Article 2:
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. 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.
5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter…

Article 24: In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.

Article 25: The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.

Article 33:
The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.
Article 37: Should the parties to a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 fail to settle it by the means indicated in that Article, they shall refer it to the Security Council.

Article 39: The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Article 40: In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable.

Article 51: Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence 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.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the judicial branch of the UN. Their definition of “armed attack” is by a nation’s government. Because the leadership of the CIA and FBI both reported that they had no evidence the Afghan government had any role in the 9/11 terrorism, the US is unable to claim Article 51 protection for military action in Afghanistan (or Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, Iran [here, here, here], Russia, or claims about ISIS or Khorasans). The legal classification of what happened on 9/11 is an act of terrorism, a criminal act, not an armed attack by another nation’s government.

The US use of force oversees could be a legal application of Article 51 if, and only if, the US could meet the burden of proof of an imminent threat that was not being responded to by the Security Council. To date, the US has not made such an argument.

American Daniel Webster helped create the legal definition of national self-defense in the Caroline Affair as “necessity of that self-defence is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” The US attack on Afghanistan came nearly a month after the 9/11 terrorism. Article 51 only allows self-defense until the Security Council takes action; which they did in two Resolutions beginning the day after 9/11 (1368 and 1373) claiming jurisdiction in the matter.

In conclusion, unless a nation can justify its military use as self-defense from armed attack from a nation’s government that is “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation,” all other acts of war are unlawful. The legal definition of “self-defense” ends when the attack terminates.

Another area to clarify is the US 1973 War Powers Act (WPA). The authorization by Congress for US presidential discretion for military action in Afghanistan and Iraq references WPA. This act, in response to the Vietnam War, reframes the Founders’ intent of keeping the power of war in the hands of Congress. It also expressly limits the president to act within US treaty obligations; the principle treaty of use of war being the UN Charter.

This means that presidential authority as commander-in-chief must always remain within the limitations of the UN Charter to be lawful orders. It’s not enough for Congress to authorize use of force; that force must always and only be within the narrow legal definition of self-defense clearly explained in the UN Charter. Of course, we can anticipate that if a government wanted to engage in unlawful war today, they would construct their propaganda to sell the war as “defensive.” The future of humanity to be safe from the scourge of war is therefore dependent upon our collective ability to discern lawful defensive wars from unlawful Wars of Aggression covered in BS–Emperor’s New Clothes claims of self-defense.

The US Army’s official law handbook provides an excellent historical and legal summary of when wars are lawful self-defense and unlawful War of Aggression in a seven-page Chapter One, including:

“The basis for the United States’ use of force… is, therefore, the Article 51 right of individual or collective self-defense.” –Operational Law Handbook 2012, Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center & School, page 6.

Importantly, after accurately defining “self-defense” in war, the JAG authors/attorneys explicitly state on page 6 that war is illegal unless a nation is under attack from another nation’s government, or can provide evidence of imminent threat of such attack:

“Anticipatory self-defense, whether labeled anticipatory or preemptive, must be distinguished from preventive self-defense. Preventive self-defense—employed to counter non-imminent threats—is illegal under international law.”

As many in alternative media have reported for years, the US was not attacked on 9/11 by another nation’s government, and the US explicitly stated they had no evidence of any imminent threat of attack. Indeed, all “reasons” for US wars are now known to be lies known to false as they were told, and disclosed by official US government agencies’ official documents.

However, despite the US Army’s law handbook’s accurate disclosure of the legal meaning of “self-defense” in war, they then ignore this meaning to claim “self-defense” as a lawful reason for US wars! The evidence the JAG attorneys cite on page 6 is United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1368. The handbook reads:

“This resolution explicitly recognized the United States’ inherent right of individual or collective self-defense pursuant to Article 51 of the UN Charter against the terrorist actors who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks.”

UNSCR 1368 and 1373, both from September, 2001, only call for international cooperation through lawful means for bringing the 9/11 criminals to justice, and remind in the very first sentence of the lawful limits of force within the UN Charter. These two documents will take about 5 minutes to read.

Again: governments have been vicious killers over the last 100 years, using “self-defense” to justify their wars. The US has started 201 foreign armed attacks since WW2, causing the world’s peoples to conclude in polling that the US is indeed #1 as the most threatening nation to world peace. These US-started armed attacks have killed ~30 million and counting; 90% of these deaths are innocent children, the elderly and ordinary working civilian women and men. These US armed attacks have war-murdered more than Hitler’s Nazis, and continue a long history of lie-began US Wars of Aggression.

The most decorated US Marine general in his day warned all Americans of this fact of lie-started wars, and W. Bush’s Senior Advisor and Deputy Chief of Staff, Karl Rove, chided Pulitzer-winning journalist, Ron Suskind, that government will continue with such actions to “create our own reality” no matter what anyone else might say.

The first round of US current wars, the attack of Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, continues this history as a deliberate act of unlawful war, not defense that was “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” The burden of proof the US would have to provide is imminent threat of another attack in order to justify self-defense. US Ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, in his letter to the UN Security Council invoking Article 51 for the attack upon Afghanistan mentions only “ongoing threat;” which does not satisfy this burden of proof.

Article 51 requires self-defensive war coming from an attack by a nation’s government, which the CIA and FBI refute in the case of the Afghan government with the terrorism on 9/11. Self-defense ends when the attack ends. The US war began four weeks after 9/11 ended; making the US war one of choice and not defense. Article 51 ends self-defense claims when the UN Security Council acts. Resolution 1373 provides clear language of international cooperation and justice under the law, with no authorization of force.

This evidence doesn’t require the light of the UN Charter’s spirit of its laws, but I’ll add it: after two world wars that killed ~80 million of our family, friends, and neighbors, humanity rejected war as a policy option, and requires nations to cooperate for justice under that law. The US has instead embraced and still embraces war with its outcomes of death, misery, poverty, and fear expressly against the wishes of humanity and the majority of Americans.

US ongoing military attacks/wars are clearly unlawful, and should be refused and stopped by all men and women in military, government and law enforcement.

The categories of crime for armed attacks outside US treaty limits of law are:
Wars of Aggression (the worst crime a nation can commit),
Treason for lying to US military, ordering unlawful attack and invasions of foreign lands, and causing thousands of US military deaths.
All 27 UK Foreign Affairs Department attorneys concluded Iraq war is unlawful: I wrote in 2010: “All the lawyers in the UK’s Foreign Affairs Department concluded the US/UK invasion of Iraq was an unlawful War of Aggression. Their expert advice is the most qualified to make that legal determination; all 27 of them were in agreement. This powerful judgment of unlawful war follows the Dutch government’s recent unanimous report and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan’s clear statements.

“This stunning information was disclosed at the UK Chilcot inquiry by the testimony of Foreign Affairs leading legal advisor, Sir Michael Wood, who added that the reply from Prime Minister Tony Blair’s office to his legal department’s professional work was chastisement for putting their unanimous legal opinion in writing.

“Sir Michael testified that Foreign Secretary Jack Straw preferred to take the legal position that the laws governing war were vague and open to broad interpretation: “He took the view that I was being very dogmatic and that international law was pretty vague and that he wasn’t used to people taking such a firm position.”

“UK Attorney General Lord Goldsmith testified he “changed his mind” against the unanimous legal opinion of all 27 of the Foreign Office attorneys to agree with the US legal argument that UN Security Council Resolution 1441 authorized use of force at the discretion of any nation’s choice. This testimony is also criminally damning: arguing that an individual nation has the right to choose war violates the purpose, letter and spirit of the UN Charter, as well as violates 1441 that reaffirms jurisdiction of the Security Council in governance of the issue. This Orwellian argument contradicts the express purpose of the Charter to prevent individual nations from engaging in wars.

“Moreover, the US and UK “legal argument” is in further Orwellian opposition to their UN Ambassadors’ statements when 1441 was passed that this did not authorize any use of force. John Negroponte, US Ambassador to the UN:

[T]his resolution contains no “hidden triggers” and no “automaticity” with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.

“Sir Jeremy Greenstock, UK Ambassador to the UN:

We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about “automaticity” and “hidden triggers” — the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response… There is no “automaticity” in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12.

“The Chilcot inquiry was initiated from public outrage against UK participation in the Iraq War, with public opinion having to engage a second time to force hearings to become public rather than closed and secret. The hearings were not authorized to consider criminal charges, which is the next battle for UK public opinion.” (end content from that article)

The UN Charter is the principle law to end wars; designed by the US to produce that result. That said, West Point Grads Against the War have further legal arguments of all the violations of war from US attack and invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, including further analysis of the UN Charter and expert supporting testimony. Another resource for documentation and analysis is David Swanson’s War is a Crime.

In comparison, Americans would never allow a favorite sport such as baseball or football to be similarly destroyed by such Emperor’s New Clothes lies to those rules/laws.

Lawful war analysis: Negroponte’s letter invokes a legal Charter Article of self-defense in contrast with the loss of over 3,000 lives on 9/11. The letter portends legal evidence of al-Qaeda’s “central role” in the attacks and claims military response is appropriate because of al-Qaeda’s ongoing threat and continued training of terrorists. This reasoning argues for a reinterpretation of self-defense to include pre-emptive attack while lying in omission that such an argument is tacit agreement of current action being outside the law.

President George Washington’s Farewell Address, the culmination of his 45 years of political experience, warned of the primary threat to America as “the impostures of pretended patriotism” from people within our own government who would destroy Constitutional limits in order to obtain tyrannical power:

“All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency.”

Young Abraham Lincoln wrote eloquently to defend the US Constitution from unlawful tyrants within our own government. In Congress, he spoke powerfully and truthfully that the President’s claims for armed attack and invasion of a foreign country were lies. Although war-mongers slurred Lincoln’s name at the time, history proved him correct in asserting the President of the US was a war-mongering liar:

“I carefully examined the President’s messages, to ascertain what he himself had said and proved upon the point. The result of this examination was to make the impression, that taking for true, all the President states as facts, he falls far short of proving his justification; and that the President would have gone farther with his proof, if it had not been for the small matter, that the truth would not permit him… Now I propose to try to show, that the whole of this, — issue and evidence — is, from beginning to end, the sheerest deception.”

Lincoln also wrote that “pre-emptive” wars were lies, and “war at pleasure.”

Those of us working to end these illegal Wars of Aggression have found zero refutations of our documentation that address war law. All we’ve ever found are denial and unsubstantiated claims of “self-defense” while having to lie about the legal limits in that term. Therefore, We the People have an obvious solution: arrests of .01% “leaders” for the most egregious crimes centering in war, money, and lies (4-part series on arrests with videos).

2. Orwellian-illegal Wars of Aggression started with “reasons” known to be lies as they were told

In addition to the illegality of US wars, we know from the disclosed evidence of our own government that all claims for current US wars were known to be lies as they were told to the American public and not “mistaken intelligence.” I began writing in 2005 because I could no longer keep in mind all the lies for US-led wars on Afghanistan, Iraq, and rhetoric for war on Iran. I wrote a ~50-page White Paper with ~200 footnotes that I sent to interested Members of Congress for consideration and circulation.

Here’s the summary for lies to initiate War Crimes on Iraq and Afghanistan:

There were four basic claims of facts presented by US political “leadership” to invade Iraq:
Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), a scary-sounding name for specific chemical and biological weapons.
The US intercepted aluminum tubes that could only be used to refine nuclear material; irrefutable evidence that Iraq had restarted a nuclear weapons program.
Saddam had attempted to purchase enriched uranium from Niger; more evidence that Iraq had reconstituted nuclear weapons development.
Saddam had links to Al Qaeda, the alleged terrorists who attacked the US on 9/11.
Here’s what we now know about the evidence from which those claims were made:
George Tenet, Director of the CIA, acknowledged that all US intelligence agency reports “never said there was an imminent threat.” This was based on a long history of intelligence reports, the facts that the chemical and biological weapons under consideration were relatively weak without a delivery system, and that Iraq was highly motivated NOT to use them against the US given their understanding such use would provoke war with the world’s most powerful military. Because all 16 US intelligence agencies stated in writing in their official National Intelligence Estimate report there is no evidence of any imminent threat, and US leaders used an argument of WMD as a reason for war without documentation of evidence while refuted by every US intelligence agency’s official report, that means this claim was a lie known to be false as it was told.
The Bush administration claim of aluminum tubes that could only be used as centrifuges to refine fissionable material for nuclear weapons is directly refuted by the best expert witnesses available, the US Department of Energy (DOE) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Their conclusion is that the tubes in question had diameters too small, the tubes were too thick, using aluminum as the material would be “a huge step backwards,” and the surface was anodized that made them impossible to serve this purpose. They also found that the tubes were easily explained for conventional use, as the specifications perfectly matched tubing for other purposes. The Senate Committee on Intelligence agreed that this claim had no basis from any available evidence (also, see here). When the US makes a war-reason without explanation and the evidence is refuted by the two leading expert agencies before the war, that means this claim was a lie known to be false as it was told.
This claim, repeated by President Bush in the 2003 State of the Union Address, was based on the “Niger documents.” These papers were written in grammatically poor French, had a “childlike” forgery of the Niger President’s signature, and had a document signed by a foreign minister who had been out of office for 14 years prior to the date on the document. The forgeries showed-up shortly after the Niger embassy in Rome was robbed, with the only missing items being stationery and Niger government stamps. The same stationery and stamps were used for the forged documents. The CIA warned President Bush on at least three occasions to not make the claim due to the ridiculous evidence. In addition, if Saddam really was making an illegal uranium purchase, it’s certain that both Saddam and the Niger government officials would insist on not having a written record that would document the crime. Republican US Ambassador to Niger, Joseph Wilson, confirmed this information and reported in detail to Vice President Cheney’s office and the CIA. When President Bush and other “leaders” use this claim as a war reason without explanation while analysis of the evidence with all available experts conclude it’s crude forgery, that means this claim was a lie known to be false as it was told.
As to the claim of a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, all US intelligence agencies reported that no such relationship existed (and here). When Vice President Cheney makes an unsubstantiated war-reason while all 16 US intelligence agencies officially report no such evidence exists AND compelling evidence exists to refute the claim, that means this claim was a lie known to be false as it was told.
Some war liars argue that UN Security Council Resolution 687 from 1991 authorizes resumption of force from the previous Gulf War. This resolution declared a formal cease-fire; which means exactly what it says: stop the use of force. The resolution was declared by UNSC and held in their jurisdiction; that is, no individual nation has authority to supersede UNSC’s power to continue or change the status of the cease-fire (further explanation here). The idea that the US and/or UK can authorize use of force under a UNSC cease-fire is as criminal as your neighbor shooting one of your family members and claiming that because police have authority to shoot dangerous people he can do it. When US leaders claim authority they clearly and OBVIOUSLY do not have, that means this claim was a lie known to be false as it was told.

War lies for unlawful war on Afghanistan: The US acknowledges the Afghanistan government had nothing to do with 9/11. The UN Security Council issued two Resolutions after 9/11 (1368 and 1373) for international cooperation for factual discovery, arrests, and prosecutions of the 9/11 criminals. The Afghan government said they would arrest any suspect upon presentation of evidence of criminal involvement, which is a usual response to another nation's request for extradition of a criminal suspect.

The US rejected these Resolutions, and violated the letter and intent of the UN Charter by armed attack and invasion of Afghanistan.

The US government requested the cooperation of the Afghanistan government for extradition of Osama bid Laden to be charged with the 9/11 attacks. The Afghan government agreed, as per usual cooperative international law, as soon as the US government provided evidence of bin Laden’s involvement. The US government refused to provide any evidence. The Afghan government refused US troops entering their country and extradition until evidence was provided, and made their argument to the world press for the rule of law to apply to the US extradition request. The US invaded Afghanistan without providing evidence and without UN Security Council approval. President Bush stated, “There’s no need to discuss evidence of innocence or guilt. We know he’s guilty.” Personally, the fact such a simpleton and anti-leader as Bush was US president contributed more to my waking-up to the real world than any other factor. I concluded the office of US President was a puppet show for sheeple.

Because the Afghanistan government did not attack the US, there was no evidence of imminent threat, the US violated the UN Security Council’s legal authority, the Afghan government took every reasonable act to cooperate, that means this US war claim of “self-defense” was a lie known to be false as it was told.

In conclusion of this section of Emperor’s New Clothes’ unlawful Wars of Aggression, all based on lies known to be lies as they were told: It’s simple enough for anyone to document the crystal-clear letter and intent of two treaties forbidding military armed attack unless under attack by another nation’s government (or imminent threat).

It’s also simple to document what we now know of “reasons” for war to prove they were all known to be false as they were told, when the facts are available for objective view.

If you’re interested in viewing a history of similar easy cases to establish a history of unlawful/treaty-violating wars started with lies, consider the following sections from my 11-part 2015 article series, US illegal: History of rogue empire REQUIRING arrests in the present. Introduction to define ‘rogue state’ as perfect match with US illegal Wars of Aggression, Crimes Against Humanity, dictatorial government
The US government violated over 300 treaties with Native Americans to take their land.
The US government violated the crystal-clear Adams-Onis treaty with Mexico to steal almost half their land in 1846.
The US government violated a crystal-clear treaty with Hawaii to overthrow their government in 1893, then annexed Hawaii against the will of the Hawaiian people.
The US government reneged on promises to reward the Philippines with independence if they helped the US end Spanish rule in 1898. The US replaced the Spanish as colonial masters, killing up to 1.5 million people.
The US government reneged on US legislation to provide Cuba with independence in 1898. We replaced Spanish colonialism with a friendly dictator.
The US government lied about the Zimmermann telegram to commit US soldiers to World War 1 by pretending “offense” at Germany’s offer to Mexico that should the US declare war on Germany, to join Germany’s side by invading the US. If the US wanted peace, all they had to do was refrain from beginning war on Germany.
The US government lied about wanting “democracy” in the Cold War to actively overthrow democracies in order to have friendly dictators.
The US government approved the cancelation of an election in Vietnam in order to maintain a friendly dictator. The US then lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident to further lie Americans to “bring freedom” to Vietnam through military invasion and high-altitude bombing.
The US government was found guilty in the King Family civil trial for assassinating Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. for opposing the Vietnam War (and here). It's likely you had no idea of the evidence presented:
US 111th Military Intelligence Group were at Dr. King’s location during the assassination.
20th Special Forces Group had an 8-man sniper team at the assassination location on that day.
Usual Memphis Police special body guards were advised they “weren’t needed” on the day of the assassination.
Regular and constant police protection for Dr. King was removed from protecting Dr. King an hour before the assassination.
Military Intelligence set-up photographers on the roof of a fire station with clear view to Dr. King’s balcony.
Dr. King’s room was changed from a secure 1st-floor room to an exposed balcony room.
Memphis police ordered the scene where multiple witnesses reported as the source of shooting cut down of their bushes that would have hid a sniper.
Along with sanitizing a crime scene, police abandoned investigative procedure to interview witnesses who lived by the scene of the shooting.
The rifle Mr. Ray delivered was not matched to the bullet that killed Dr. King, and was not sighted to accurately shoot.
Ready to demand US .01% arrests yet?

3. Looting tens of trillions in taxes and resources

The purpose of empire is parasitic control over resources: human resources to work natural resources for tens of trillions in profits. In addition, the parasites loot trillions from taxpayers lied-into these illegal Wars of Aggression to "save them from terrorists."

Indian economist Utsa Patnaik's published research documents that colonial UK looted ~$45 trillion from India from 1765 to 1938 through control over natural and human resources. This military and political domination murdered millions of Indians. British history lies that colonialism’s purpose was to “bring civilization” and Christianity to help development, costing money rather than parasitizing resources: $45 trillion over 173 years is $260 billion/year, ~10% of modern UK GDP (10% of modern US GDP is $1.9 trillion; about half the US federal budget). Therefore, .01% psychopathic oligarchs are highly motivated to maintain a hidden and ongoing empire.
I don't know of research to quantify how much US empire has looted over centuries, but one apparent reason for US war-colonialism is petrodollar control.

The 1% neo/war-colonialism "leaders" now possess more wealth than the bottom 99%. Consider this 30-seconds of who’s “developing” whom:

In 2016 I reported on the US Department of Defense (DoD) admitting they “lost” $6.5 trillion of our taxes; ~$65,000 per average US household. In 2017 I updated upon Catherine Austin Fitts’ reporting, with further work by Michigan State University Economics Professor Mark Skidmore and Fitts documenting from available DoD and Housing and Urban Development (HUD) reports that total $21 trillion “missing” from just those two areas of government from 1998 to 2015 (here, here, here), that equals ~$200,000 looted from every American household.

Related to war looting, the benefits of monetary reform and public banking are ~$1,000,000 per US household in contrast with Americans being told by “leaders” we owe over $20,000,000,000,000 (20 trillion dollars) because the US model is the “best system in the world.”

Three videos "right on the money":

33 minutes of Professor Skidmore discussing with Greg Hunter:

The first 13 minutes of Redacted Tonight (adult language):

My 56-minute discussion with Professor Jim Fetzer:

4. Three analogies to break Americans’ mind-control to allow OBVIOUS lie-started illegal wars

I was inspired to write analogies by the following comment from an otherwise intelligent person in 2016:

“Therefore, while I can say it strongly appears U.S. wars are in violation of the treaties and therefore likely illegal, there is no way for myself to make that a legally binding finding and attach legal demands based upon it. I can make stuff up, but that won’t go over very well.”

From similar comments over time, I’ve made perhaps ten requests for this person to summarize war law in a sentence or two. I received only dodges avoiding this easy and essential citizen responsibility. This said, this isn’t the only individual who can’t summarize war law, and see that it’s meant to be as clear as:
“stop sign” law for driving,
a baseball rule, like the strike zone,
a chore for one’s child at home, like taking out the trash.
Let’s look at these three examples to see war law violation by US .01% “leaders” is as outrageous as one can imagine, not even close to legal, started on lies known to be false as they were told, and requiring immediate arrests to stop an obvious crime war-murdering millions, harming billions, and looting trillions.

Example 1: Stop sign law: In general, law is meant to be crystal-clear so as to help produce a desired result. Traffic law is meant to make driving as safe and efficient as possible, with California stop sign law as a perfect example:

“An 8-sided red STOP sign indicates that you must make a full “STOP” whenever you see this sign. Stop at the white limit line (a wide white line painted on the street) or before entering the crosswalk. If a limit line or crosswalk is not painted on the street, stop before entering the intersection. Check traffic in all directions before proceeding.”

There’s more that could be said about this law, but this is enough as we all have personal experience of what this law means. Now imagine this scenario:

In your residential neighborhood with a 25 mph speed limit, you have a stop sign one house away. Your child attends the elementary school down the street, and you know that children have been hit by cars on this street. One day you observe at 7 AM a red Toyota truck speed through that stop sign ~40 mph, and at 5 PM he speeds through the other way. As you watch, horrified this has happened twice, you see your next-door neighbor has also observed this. You walk over:

You: Did you see that?! I saw that same truck do that this morning; just blow by that stop sign, and speeding!

Neighbor: Yeah. I’ve seen it the last three weekdays, morning and evening. Same truck, same driver, same speed, never even slows down.

You: Have you called the police? Let’s stop this!

Neighbor: While I can say it strongly appears this driver is in violation of the law and therefore likely illegal, there is no way for myself to make that a legally binding finding and attach legal demands based upon it. I can make stuff up, but that won’t go over very well.

You: Are you joking?

Neighbor: No. I take neighborhood safety seriously. Because he’s seen me, he threw this note at me yesterday. Well, it was attached to a brick that missed me and went through my windshield. But anyway, this is what the note says:

“My driving is legal because:
I have white decals on my vehicle, and have extra driving privileges.
My wife is pregnant. Emergencies change everything. I must use emergency “enhanced driving techniques.”
It’s pretty well confirmed you’re in communication with Al-Qaeda terrorists, so I’m acting in legal self-defense before you attack again.”
You: Dude.

Neighbor: What? While I can say it strongly appears this driver is in violation of the law and therefore likely illegal, there is no way for myself to make that a legally binding finding and attach legal demands based upon it. I can make stuff up, but that won’t go over very well.

You: Ok, let’s look. First: his truck doesn’t have those white stickers, plus it’s irrelevant for speeding through a stop sign. Second: if he drives like this every day AND both ways that has nothing to do with a pregnant wife. And the last one, seriously, are you going to take that shit that you’re the cause of his speeding because you’re some evil terrorist?!

I could go on, but you get the points about this neighbor within the limits of an analogy:
No demonstrated understanding of this law.
Need of greater voice for responsible citizenship.
Apparent no ability to discern good from evil.
Example 2: baseball’s strike zone. Scenario: You attend your son’s high school baseball game with about 100 other adults and students in your team’s stands. Your same neighbor is at the game with you, with his son at bat. The pitcher delivers a pitch ten feet over everyone’s head to the backstop. The umpire calls, “Strike one!” You, in shock, attempt to ask your neighbor if you heard correctly. As you begin talking, the pitcher’s second pitch is tossed to their team’s manager in the dugout:

Umpire: Strike two!

You: This game is rigged!

Neighbor: While I can say it strongly appears those pitches are outside the strike zone and therefore likely balls, there is no way for myself to make that a binding finding and attach demands based upon it. I can make stuff up, but that won’t go over very well.

You: The first one was over everyone’s heads by 10 feet! The second is a joke!

(as we talk, the pitcher delivers the third pitch: rolling it to the third baseman and smirking at the “umpire” calling, “Strike three!”)

Neighbor: (loudly encouraging to son) Next time, next time, son! You’ll have to swing at one of those to have a chance!

Let’s do some analysis:
Again, your neighbor shows no understanding of the law.
Your neighbor is at risk of being a sucker to whatever consequences might come from such ignorance.
Your neighbor is a sheeple only qualified to receive dictates of what reality is and what it means.
Of course, because Americans take sports law sooooo seriously (and here), many of the 100 fans would be on the field to stop the game after the second pitch, and would never ever ever ever allow a game they cared about to be destroyed by Orwellian “umpires.”

Example 3: taking out the trash. Scenario: Your son has a chore to take out the trash before he goes to bed each night. One morning before school, you notice the trash wasn’t taken out last night. Your son comes downstairs.

You: Son, you didn’t take out the trash last night.

Son: C’mon Dad: while you can say it strongly appears the trash is in violation of the agreement and therefore likely illegal, there is no way for you to make that a binding finding and attach demands based upon it. You can make stuff up, but that won’t go over very well.

You: (blinking twice, indicating with body language that your son now has your full attention)

Son: (recognizing this bullshit isn’t working, clears his throat) Besides, taking the trash out is a relative term. If it’s out, then relative to that location, inside the house is outside of that domain. If the trash is in, it’s already outside the domain of out!

(placing his hand in mock sincerity upon my shoulder) Dad, America needs clear laws and enforceable laws, not the arbitrary stop you’re making of my morning in lawless arbitrary demand. It’s up to our household legislation to plug loopholes; it’s the duty of the family to understand what needs to be done and demand it.

Fair laws, clear laws, enforceable laws.

Don’t be a preening weenie, Dad.

You: You’re joking, right?

Son: Not at all. I take household responsibilities very seriously. Very seriously.

You: (pursing lips and nodding) Anything else you’d like to add to your explanation?

Son: Yes. The rule states that the trash go out before I “go to bed.” I never went to bed last night. I had a “temporary emergency bailout of consciousness” distinct from “going to bed.” So, technically, I won’t be in violation until I actually “go to bed.” And this state of emergency might need to be continued indefinitely. Oh, and I still stand on my point that given the ambiguity of the rule with in and out, neither one of us can determine any violation of law.

You: Son, laws are meant to be clear; this one is. Your first excuse has to destroy known and agreed terms of in and out to pretend the law is unclear. Your second excuse again destroys a definition of an essential part of the law, then, as the first excuse, attempts to bullshit your way to willfully destroy clear law. This bullshit includes rhetoric of caring about responsibility, a need for clear laws, and justice.

The law is simple: (pointing to trash) That is inside the house. It needs to go outside to the trash container (pointing) every night. Nobody is confused by this.

How did you get this wild idea?

Son: (snapping out of his experiment with psychopathy) My baseball teammate and neighbor uses it on his dad all the time. He says it works. Thanks for not being played, Dad. That’s the type of man I want to be!

5. Endgame: US military, government employees, and real Americans demanding .01% arrests as OBVIOUS lawful remedy to stop war-murdering millions, harming billions, looting trillions

Updated from a 2015 essay: Awakened Americans do not want revolution in any sense beyond the Latin etymology “to turn around” from the crimes and lies we explain, document, and prove beyond reasonable doubt documented throughout this essay.

Awakened Americans simply want our most important laws honored by law enforcement and military with Oaths to support and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Our most important laws center in stopping government mass-murder (war), parasitically looting the public (economic fraud), and defending inalienable rights.

Awakened Americans point to literally ~100 game-changing and Emperor’s New Clothes obvious areas of crimes and lies that require criminal arrests from those authorized to do so. The costs of these crimes: millions killed, billions harmed, and trillions looted year, after year, after year, after year, that will continue to damn our children and grandchildren unless these crimes are lawfully stopped by arrests.

HAVE YOU NOTICED that almost each and every right has been taken from you with the age-old dictator excuse of “national security”?

Dictatorship means a .01% dictate that law is whatever they say, and your rights are what you're told they are and mean.

Government by dicts has been the historical result of the public’s lack of critical thinking skills to discern that “official messages”are propaganda, with constitutional republics becoming tragic-comedies. Roman historians and the US Founding Generation wrote as powerfully as one can imagine to warn present and future human beings of this danger.

All human beings with a high school-level of education can recognize Emperor’s New Clothes facts of criminal dictatorial government and propaganda if they’re pointed-to and if the human beings care to look. This is a fundamental test of critical thinking skills in the real world, with basic education to discern objective and independently verifiable facts from whatever bullshit rhetoric the .01%’s focus groups conclude most likely to sell (thank you, Professor Frankfurt, for your bestseller making BS an academic term).

Indeed, the History-Social Science Framework for California Public Schools, pgs. 2, 7-8, charges teachers to:

“As educators in the field of history–social science, we want our students to perceive the complexity of social, economic, and political problems. We want them to have the ability to differentiate between what is important and what is unimportant. We want them to know their rights and responsibilities as American citizens. We want them to understand the meaning of the Constitution as a social contract that defines our democratic government and guarantees our individual rights. We want them to respect the right of others to differ with them. We want them to take an active role as citizens and to know how to work for change in a democratic society. We want them to understand the value, the importance, and the fragility of democratic institutions. We want them to realize that only a small fraction of the world’s population (now or in the past) has been fortunate enough to live under a democratic form of government, and we want them to understand the conditions that encourage democracy to prosper. We want them to develop a keen sense of ethics and citizenship. And we want them to care deeply about the quality of life in their community, their nation, and their world.”

For one example of soooo many warnings of the fragility and rareness of freedom, on September 18, 1787, just after signing the US Constitution, Benjamin Franklin met with members of the press. He was asked what kind of government America would have. Franklin: “A republic, if you can keep it.” In his speech to the Constitutional Convention, Franklin admonished:

“This [U.S. Constitution] is likely to be administered for a course of years and then end in despotism… when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.” – The Quotable Founding Fathers, pg. 39.

American school children learn “limited government” is an idea basic and central for any people to live free from dictatorial government. Limited government means:
Government power is limited by clear and explicit areas within a constitution.
These limits are crystal clear and analogous to the clarity of basic rules in sports to ensure fair play by all.
Government violation of limit(s) initiates all with Oaths to the US Constitution to speak-up, refuse any unconstitutional order because they are void of authority, and demand arrest(s) of those who act for unlimited/dictatorial government over a free people.
In contrast, absence of limited government means government is unlimited; that is, with powers of whatever is dictated (literally said) whenever said. Government without limits is therefore a dictatorship.
All the above is relatively modern history I have personally researched as a professional historian to explain and document. I am absolutely confident of the comprehensive factual accuracy in the above links that anyone can independently verify, and will eagerly debate anyone who challenges. This documentation is the product of 42 years now in civic activism, academic study, and professional practice. This includes 18 years working with both parties' "leaderships" for US domestic and foreign policy to end poverty that led to two UN summits for heads of state, with good news that ~90% of the thousands of Members of Congress we worked with keeping their word to vote full-funding to end poverty, and ~10% in "leadership" positions who would only and always lie and renege on all promises (including all Bushes and Clintons). My personal conclusions:
Earth suffers from ongoing rogue state empires for .01% parasitic and psychopathic domination, with the US as the current leading neocolonial power.
These lying leaders want poverty to force humans into serving the empire rather than suffer the fate of those not serving for slave-level wages.
Humanity is in an Emperor's New Clothes moment (more analogies here): so many messengers are pointing and clearly voicing these facts anyone can see who cares to look, and for now the psychopathic parade of evil continues.
Because .01% testimony about history is proven as lies coming from Orwellian anti-leaders (or real leaders for evil/loveless self-service), rational people must reject all other testimony from them as unreliable.

This should be obvious.

It should also be obvious that people competent to live with freedom must demand .01% arrests for ongoing crimes annually killing millions, harming billions, and looting trillions.

Demanding .01% arrests

As a National Board Certified Teacher in History, Government, and Economics, I factually assert that rogue state empire is the most accurate description of the US. I will debate anyone, anytime on this point. Please don’t believe me (or anyone); look for yourself, including in professionally thoroughly documented writing, and this peer-reviewed and published paper, this White Paper circulated among Members of Congress, or this 56-minute interview to define rogue state empire with three case studies:

You don't need further data than the above, and that said, there's more in abundance:
When Americans are told an election is defined by touching a computer screen without a countable receipt that can be verified, they are being told a criminal lie to allow election fraud. This is self-evident, but Princeton, Stanford, and the President of the American Statistical Association are among the leaders pointing to the obvious (and here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here). Again, no professional would/can argue an election is legitimate when there is nothing for anyone to count. The facts show Bernie Sanders won the Democratic Primary election, and claims by Democratic “leadership” of Russian election “meddling” are without factual documentation.
US military now illegally occupy eight bases in Syria (and here), with escalating bombing of Syria and Iraq of over 4,000 bombs/month, and over 84,000 since 2014. The US acknowledges ~500 civilian deaths from these bombs, with independent count of ~750 just in June 2017, and causing the worst war-destruction since Vietnam.
Among dozens of independent writers, I’ve documented that all “reasons” for wars on Iran, Syria, and Russia are easily proved lies (recently, here, here, here, and going back to 2005), with US Department of illegal Wars of Aggression (so-called “Defense”) claiming to have “lost” $65,000 for every US household.
The destruction of nearly all rights lawfully guaranteed in the US Bill of Rights within the US Constitution, and in Orwellian inversion of limited government.
Iran has never threatened to “wipe Israel off the map” and only has IAEA-verified legal energy and medicine programs with nuclear materials. Trump and corporate media continues and escalates easily-verified lies to threaten more illegal war on Iran.
Israel engages in lie-started and illegal War of Aggression on Gaza; ironically the largest concentration camp in world history. This is also easy to verify.
Categories of crime include:
Wars of Aggression (the worst crime a nation can commit).
Likely treason for lying to US military, ordering unlawful attack and invasions of foreign lands, and causing thousands of US military deaths.
Crimes Against Humanity for ongoing intentional policy of poverty that’s killed over 400 million human beings just since 1995 (~75% children; more deaths than from all wars in Earth’s recorded history).
US military, law enforcement, and all with Oaths to support and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, face an endgame choice:
Demand arrests, with those with lawful authority to enact it. An arrest is the lawful action to stop apparent crimes, with the most serious crimes documented here meaning the most serious need for arrests.
Watch the US escalate its rogue state crimes that annually kill millions, harm billions, and loot trillions.
In just 90 seconds, former US Marine Ken O’Keefe powerfully states how you may choose to voice “very obvious solutions”: arrest the criminal leaders (video starts at 20:51, then finishes this episode of Cross Talk):

3-minute video: Police, Military – Was your Oath sincere?

I make all factual assertions as a National Board Certified Teacher of US Government, Economics, and History (also credentialed in Mathematics), with all economic factual claims receiving zero refutation since I began writing in 2008 among Advanced Placement Macroeconomics teachers on our discussion board, public audiences of these articles, and international conferences (and here). I invite readers to empower their civic voices with the strongest comprehensive facts most important to building a brighter future. I challenge professionals, academics, and citizens to add their voices for the benefit of all Earth’s inhabitants.
Carl Herman worked with both US political parties over 18 years and two UN Summits with the citizen’s lobby, RESULTS, for US domestic and foreign policy to end poverty. He can be reached at [email protected]

Note: My work from 2012 to October, 2017 is on Washington’s Blog. Work back to 2009 is blocked by Examiner.com (and from other whistleblowers), so some links to those essays are blocked. If you’d like to search for those articles other sites may have republished, use words from the article title within the blocked link. Or, go to http://archive.org/web/, paste the expired link into the box, click “Browse history,” then click onto the screenshots of that page for each time it was screen-shot and uploaded to webarchive (blocked author pages: here, here).