Introduction to

 C R I M E S    A G A I N S T    H U M A N I T Y

The 9-11 bombings Are Not Acts of War

The 9-11 bombings Are Crimes Against Humanity

The bombings of 11 September 2001 are clearly crimes against humanity (as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court) because they are deliberate and intentional killing of large numbers of civilians for political or other purposes.

After 11 September 2001, people in the United States Executive Branch immediately chose to label the bombings as an act of war by a foreign aggressor rather than as a criminal act requiring redress through legal remedies.

It is timely to recall the people who created The White Rose, the student-led German resistance movement which started in Munich in 1943. This began when it became obvious that no other German citizens were doing anything significant to stop fascism. The White Rose printed seven leaflets exposing the tyrannical power of their militaristic and nationalistic regime. From this dissent they became the target of the anti-terrorism units of the Nazis for those illegal acts of treason against flag, Volk and Fuhrer. These people were willing to stand up and die for what they believed in. If we survive this period of our species’ adolescence, the current, infantile partiality masquerading as if it were the whole will necessarily collapse as Hitler’s and all the other’s did before.

If we do make it through this epochal moment in the growth of our species, we will need to have consistently re-asserted the primacy and critically essential body and rule of law that has been established, both domestically and internationally, from the Haudenosaunee and Athens to Nuremberg and beyond that has sought to establish legal precedents to encourage and provide for a more humane and secure world in the future.

See:	The Six Nations - Oldest Living Participatory Democracy on Earth George Bush, Jr., September 11th and the Rule of Law, from The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence - Could The US War On Terrorism Go Nuclear?, by Francis Boyle, Clarity Press, 1 February 2002

Dispelling the Bewitchment That “We’re At War”

Since 9/11 the U.S. corporate regime justifies everything it is doing by claiming we are war. The war powers of the presidency is cited in the courts as justification for the military to hold citizens. Public discourse is largely locked into a tacit acceptance of legitimacy for what has been done because “We’re at war”—from making aggressive war on peoples that cannot defend themselves and rejecting international treaties and laws, to justifying and implementing the unthinkable-before-September-11th police state now codified on the law books here at home.

But we are not at war. The 9/11 bombings were a crime against humanity mass murder of civilians. The U.N. Security Council rejected Bush II’s bid to label the bombings an “armed attack” by one state against another state. The resolution that was passed denominated these events as "terrorist attacks.” As international law professor Francis Boyle points out, “there is a magnitude of difference between an armed attack by one state against another state, which is an act of war, and a terrorist attack, which is not. ... terrorists are dealt with as criminals. Terrorists are not treated like nation states. Terrorists are dealt with by means of international and domestic law enforcement. Terrorists are not given the dignity of special status under international law and practice.”

But elevating the dignity of terrorist individuals to reside on a par with the authority of nation-states is precisely what Bush II is doing. The claim that “we are are war” provides the underlying justification for the USA PATRIOT Act, the Homeland Security Act, and the violation and destruction of the foundations of American Constitutional liberties as well as the abrogation of the United States’ participation as an equal member in the family of nations. Regressing to the barbaric “law of the jungle” promises the abrogation of an entire species’ evolutionary history that seeks to honor and serves life’s needs. There is much to be done to challenge and dispell the bewitchment that “we are at war.”

On The Sponsorship of 9/11 and Common Sense:

• The sole case presented against Osama bin Laden & Al Qaeda for the 9/11 bombings was a white paper entitled, “Responsibility for the terrorist atrocities in the United States.” Published in October 2001 by Tony Blair, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, this work acknowledges up front that it would not stand up in a court of law:

  “This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Usama Bin Laden in a court of law. Intelligence often cannot be used evidentially, due both to the strict rules of admissibility and to the need to protect the safety of sources. But on the basis of all the information available HMG is confident of its conclusions as expressed in this document.”

  The above statement is a classic example of how the authority of our national security state structure is founded on unaccountability, the antithesis of a truly democratic governing process. With the intrinsic use of secrecy and wholesale suppression of information, we are consistently relegated to an infantile status of not knowing the full scope of reasoning officials employ in their policy and law-making decisions.

  This white paper was the only so-called proof given by Bush II for its claims of 9/11 sponsorship and it was not even authored by the United States government or an American citizen.
• We still do not know what interests actually directed and engineered the 9/11 bombings as Gore Vidal points out in his illuminating October 2002 essay, “The Enemy Within”:

  “The media, never much good at analysis, are more and more breathless and incoherent. On CNN, even the stolid Jim Clancy started to hyperventilate when an Indian academic tried to explain how Iraq was once our ally and ‘friend’ in its war against our Satanic enemy Iran. ‘None of that conspiracy stuff,’ snuffed Clancy. Apparently, ‘conspiracy stuff’ is now shorthand for unspeakable truth....

  “Mohammed Heikal is a brilliant Egyptian journalist-observer, and sometime Foreign Minister. On 10 October 2001, he said to the Guardian: ‘Bin Laden does not have the capabilities for an operation of this magnitude. When I hear Bush talking about al-Qaeda as if it were Nazi Germany or the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, I laugh because I know what is there. Bin Laden has been under surveillance for years: every telephone call was monitored and al-Qaeda has been penetrated by US intelligence, Pakistani intelligence, Saudi intelligence, Egyptian intelligence. They could not have kept secret an operation that required such a degree of organisation and sophistication.’”

  See also:

  The Facts, The Powell/Blair White Paper, The Cover-Ups, and The Bin Laden Video, from George Bush, Jr., September 11th and the Rule of Law, by Francis Boyle, 2/1/02 Domestic Terrorism: The Big Lie - The “War” On Terrorism is a Total Fabrication, (from Broadening Our Perspectives of 11 September 2001) Section 3 of Foreknowledge of 9-11, A Compilation of Centre for Research on Globalisation articles and documents The so-called “war on Terrorism” is a total fabrication: Who “harbors” whom? Osama-CIA links. Washington’s has consistently supported and abeted Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda, from the Cold War to the present (2002)

• On 13 January 2002 in an interview with the Berlin Tagesspiegel daily, former German Minister of Technology, Andreas von Buelow gave his assessment of the level of sponsorship necessary to carry out the 9/11 bombings:

  “I can state: the planning of the attacks was technically and organizationally a master achievement. To hijack four huge airplanes within a few minutes and within one hour, to drive them into their targets, with complicated flight maneuvers! This is unthinkable, without years-long support from secret apparatuses of the state and industry.”

Violations of Constitutional Rights and Liberties by Bush II

Attorney General John Ashcroft’s undermining of constitutional rights far exceeds anything experienced in American history. Since 11 September 2001, Bush II has enacted laws that deny freedom here at home on an order of magnitude greater than anything terrorists could dream of imposing. And they’re not finished yet. Except for rare critical analyses of these denials of freedom inside the United States, commercial media has utterly failed to emphasize the relentless march of this supreme and fundamental threat to freedom and liberty by our own unelected government.

The “USA PATRIOT Act”

The October 2001 “USA PATRIOT Act” (USAPA) legally turned the United States into a potentially permanent police state. It vastly expands the structures of government secrecy and surveillance, utterly relinquishes any semblance of due process, categorically violates the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments, and unacceptably mixes aspects of criminal investigations with aspects of immigration and foreign intelligence laws, while it simultaneously extinguishes the accountability of elected and non-elected government officials.

Members of Congress have pointed out that this legislation would not have stopped the 9/11 attacks. Hence, for what did we give up our unique constitutional guarantees and liberties?

The USAPA was passed during the height of the anthrax scare which effectively shut down the US government at a very critical moment in our history as a republic. Congressman Ron Paul asserts that this law was not made available to members of Congress for review before its vote.

See:

Forfeiting ‘Enduring Freedom’ for ‘Homeland Security’: A Constitutional Analysis of the USA PATRIOT Act and the Justice Department’s Anti-Terrorism Initiatives, by John W. Whitehead & Steven H. Aden, American University Law Review, Vol.51, No.6, August 2002 The USA PATRIOT Act: What’s So Patriotic About Trampling on the Bill of Rights? by Nancy Chang, Senior Litigation Attorney, Center for Constitutional Rights, November 2001 Repeal the USA Patriot Act, by Jennifer Van Bergen, t r u t h o u t, April 1st-6th, 2002 Bracing for Bush’s War at Home - Ground Laid for Historic Presidential Powers Push, by Chisun Lee, Village Voice, 26 Mar 2003

• Section 802 of the USAPA creates a federal crime of “domestic terrorism” that broadly extends to “acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws” if they “appear to be intended ... to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion,” and if they “occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.” Because this crime is couched in such vague and expansive terms, it may well be read by federal law enforcement agencies as licensing the investigation and surveillance of political activists and organizations based on their opposition to government policies. It also may be read by prosecutors as licensing the criminalization of legitimate political dissent. Vigorous protest activities, by their very nature, could be construed as acts that “appear to be intended ... to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.” Further, clashes between demonstrators and police officers and acts of civil disobedience—even those that do not result in injuries and are entirely non-violent—could be construed as “dangerous to human life” and in “violation of the criminal laws.” Environmental activists, anti-globalization activists, and anti-abortion activists who use direct action to further their political agendas are particularly vulnerable to prosecution as “domestic terrorists.”
  
  Section 802 violates the constitutionally protected First Amendment right of “the freedom of speech” and “the right of the people peaceably to assemble . . .”

  See:

  USAPA Section 802. Definition Of Domestic Terrorism. “Silencing Political Dissent,” from What’s So Patriotic About Trampling on the Bill of Rights? by Nancy Chang “Expanding the Scope of “Terrorism” and “Domestic Terrorism”,” from Forfeiting ‘Enduring Freedom’ for ‘Homeland Security’ by John Whitehead & Steven Aden

  
  
• Section 213 of the USAPA authorizes federal agents to conduct “sneak and peek searches,” or covert searches of a person’s home or office that are conducted without notifying the person of the execution of the search warrant until after the search has been completed. When notice of a search is delayed, one is foreclosed from pointing out deficiencies in the warrant to the officer executing it, and from monitoring whether the search is being conducted in accordance with the warrant. In addition, Section 213, by authorizing delayed notice of the execution of a warrant to conduct a seizure of items, contravenes Rule 41(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which requires that, “The officer taking property under the warrant shall give to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken a copy of the warrant and a receipt for the property taken or shall leave the copy and receipt at the place from which the property was taken.” Section 213 is not limited to terrorism investigations, but extends to all criminal investigations, and is not scheduled to expire.

  Section 213 violates the constitutionally protected Fourth Amendment "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures . . .”

  See:

  USAPA Section 213. Authority for Delaying Notice of the Execution of a Warrant “Sneak and Peek Searches,” from What’s So Patriotic About Trampling on the Bill of Rights? by Nancy Chang “"Sneak and Peek” Warrants,” from Forfeiting ‘Enduring Freedom’ for ‘Homeland Security’ by John Whitehead & Steven Aden

  
  
• Under Section 216 of the Act, courts are required to order the installation of an electronic pen register and a trap and trace device to track both telephone and Internet “dialing, routing, addressing and signaling information” anywhere within the United States when a government attorney has certified that the information to be obtained is “relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.” Section 216 states that orders issued under its authority cannot permit the tracking of the “contents of any wire or electronic communications.” However, in the case of email messages and Internet usage, the Act does not address the complex question of where the line should be drawn between “dialing, routing, addressing and signaling information” and “content.” Unlike telephone communications, where the provision of dialing information does not run the risk of revealing content, email messages move together in packets that include both address and content information. Also, the question of whether a list of web sites and web pages that have been visited constitutes “dialing, routing, addressing and signaling information” or “content” has yet to be resolved.
  
  Section 216 violates the constitutionally protected Fourth Amendment "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures . . .” and the Fifth Amendment right to indictment by a grand jury.
  
  

  See:

  USAPA Section 216. Modification of Authorities Relating to Use of Pen Registers and Trap and Trace Devices “Tracking Internet Usage,” from What’s So Patriotic About Trampling on the Bill of Rights? by Nancy Chang “FISA Pen Register and “Trap and Trace” Orders,” from Forfeiting ‘Enduring Freedom’ for ‘Homeland Security’ by John Whitehead & Steven Aden

  
  
• Section 203 of the USAPA authorizes the disclosure, without judicial supervision, of certain criminal and foreign intelligence information to officials of the FBI, CIA, and INS, as well as other federal agencies, where receipt of the information will “assist the official ... in the performance of his official duties.” Section 203(a) permits the disclosure of matters occurring before a grand jury—a category that is as boundless in scope as the powers of a grand jury to subpoena records and witnesses. Section 203(b) permits the disclosure of recordings of intercepted telephone and Internet conversations. The USAPA threatens American’s political freedoms and privacy when sensitive personal information is widely shared without court supervision. The 1976 report of the Senate’s Church Committee revealed that the FBI and CIA had spied on thousands of law-abiding citizens, from civil rights workers to anti-Vietnam War protesters. These people had been targeted solely because they were believed to harbor politically dissident views. Section 203(a) is not scheduled to expire.
  
  Section 203 violates the constitutionally protected Fourth Amendment "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures . . .” and the Fifth Amendment protection of the privacy of an individual’s grand jury testimony which now may be shared with a wide range of law enforcement authorities.
  
  

  See:

  USAPA Section 203. Authority to Share Criminal Investigative Information “Sharing of Sensitive Criminal and Foreign Intelligence Information,” from What’s So Patriotic About Trampling on the Bill of Rights? by Nancy Chang “Ending the Historic Secrecy of Grand Juries,” and “Information Disclosed to CIA and Other Intelligence Agencies,” from Forfeiting ‘Enduring Freedom’ for ‘Homeland Security’ by John Whitehead & Steven Aden

  
  
• The USAPA deprives immigrants of their due process and First Amendment rights through two mechanisms that operate in tandem. First, Section 411 vastly expands the class of immigrants who are subject to removal on terrorism grounds through its broad definitions of the terms "terrorist activity,” “engage in terrorist activity,” and "terrorist organization.” Second, Section 412 vastly expands the authority of the Attorney General to place immigrants he suspects are engaged in terrorist activities in detention while their removal proceedings are pending.
  
  The Due Process Clause “applies to all ’persons’ within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.” Yet, Section 412 exposes immigrants to extended, and, in some cases, indefinite, detention on the sole authority of the Attorney General’s untested certification that he has “reasonable grounds to believe” that a non-citizen is engaged in terrorist activities.
  
  Sections 411 and Section 412 violate the constitutionally protected First Amendment right of free speech and right of association, the Fifth Amendment right to due process of law, and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
  
  

  See:

  USAPA Section 411. Definitions Relating to Terrorism USAPA Section 412. Mandatory Detention of Suspected Terrorists; Habeas Corpus; Judicial Review “Stripping Immigrants of Constitutional Protections,” from What’s So Patriotic About Trampling on the Bill of Rights? by Nancy Chang “Exclusion of Non-Citizens Accused of “Endorsing” Terrorism,” and “The Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel,” and “Indefinite Detention of Non-Citizens Without Due Process,” from Forfeiting ‘Enduring Freedom’ for ‘Homeland Security’ by John Whitehead & Steven Aden

  
  
• The Justice Department assures Americans that its new legal and investigatory authority is “carefully drawn” to target only "terrorists. At the same time that the Justice Department is ostensibly targeting only this “narrow class of individuals,” it has greatly expanded that class of suspects through the USAPA. Section 808 amends 18 U.S.C. § 2332b to include any such acts that result in virtually any federal crime of violence. Conceivably, these extensions of the definition of “terrorist” could bring within their sweep diverse domestic political groups, which have been accused of acts of intimidation or property damage such as Act Up, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), Operation Rescue, and the Vieques demonstrators. Cognizant of these criticisms and fears, the Attorney General assured the Senate in December 2001 that the U.S. government’s definition of terrorism has, since 1983, included as terrorists only “those who perpetrate premeditated, politically motivated violence against noncombatant targets.” If that is true, it certainly begs the question of why the Bush Administration felt the need to redefine “terrorism” to include a wide variety of domestic criminal acts.
  
  Section 808 violates the constitutionally protected First Amendment right of free speech and right of association, and the Fifth Amendment right to due process of law.
  
  

  See:	USAPA Section 808. Definition of Federal Crime of Terrorism “Centralization of Law Enforcement Powers in the Justice Department,” and “Expanding the Scope of “Terrorism” and “Domestic Terrorism”,” from Forfeiting ‘Enduring Freedom’ for ‘Homeland Security’ by John Whitehead & Steven Aden

  
  
• The proponents of the USAPA, including U.S. intelligence agencies, were waiting to go long before 9/11. It was the Reagan Administration which initially proposed some of the most troubling provisions which eventually became part of the USAPA. Section 218 USAPA amendment of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) allows government to completely avoid Fourth Amendment probable cause requirements for searches and seizures of American citizens. It is obvious that the proponents of this amendment know it is an end-run around the Fourth Amendment. They have had many years to think about it and have repeatedly shown their willingness to enact carefully crafted, unconstitutional laws.
  
  One of the most dramatic interferences with privacy under the Fourth Amendment comes through the monitoring of communications between individuals. Law enforcement authority to conduct electronic surveillance and intelligence arises predominantly from two federal statutes. FISA allows wiretapping of citizens as well as resident aliens in the United States upon a showing of probable cause that the target is a “foreign power” or an “agent of a foreign power.” The FISA court consists of eleven federal judges appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. It hears surveillance requests on an expedited basis.
  
  Section 218 is, thus, critically significant as it amends FISA to provide that “foreign intelligence” need not be the purpose of investigations seeking orders under the Act, but merely a “significant purpose.” The amendment applies both to FISA electronic surveillance warrants and FISA warrants for physical searches of property. This greatly expands the power of federal authorities to apply the relatively loose standards of FISA to investigations of both U.S. citizens and residents that only tangentially touch on national security.
  
  Section 218 violates the constitutionally protected Fourth Amendment right to privacy and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.
  
  

  See:

  USAPA Section 218. Foreign Intelligence Information The USA PATRIOT Act Was Planned Before 9/11, by Jennifer Van Bergen, truthout, 20 May 2002 “Expansion of Searches Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,” from Forfeiting ‘Enduring Freedom’ for ‘Homeland Security’ by John Whitehead & Steven Aden

The creation of the Department of Homeland Security is perhaps even a more momentous turn (if that’s possible) away from constitutional governance than the 1947 National Security Act. With the Homeland Security Act, Bush II is pushing hard to do away with the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 which for more than a century has kept the U.S. military out of local law enforcement. Last fall Homeland Security Czar Tom Ridge warned the International Longshoremen Workers Union that any large scale strike contemplated against Pacific Maritime will be viewed as a threat to national security.

The leaked draft in January 2003 of the “Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003” (DSEA) to the Center for Public Integrity is a potent indicator of what Bush II seeks to “cook up” for all Americans without the bothersome process of public debate much less of the advice and consent of the Congress. As Democratic senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, ranking minority member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said on February 10:

"The early signals from the Administration about its intentions for this [DSEA] bill are ominous ... For months, and as recently as just last week, Justice Department officials have denied to members of the Judiciary Committee that they were drafting another anti-terrorism package. There still has not been any hint from them about their draft bill.”

Georgetown University Law professor David Cole (author of Terrorism and the Constitution,) reviewed the draft legislation and said it "raises a lot of serious concerns. It’s troubling that they have gotten this far along and they’ve been telling people there is nothing in the works." This proposed law, he added, "would radically expand law enforcement and intelligence gathering authorities, reduce or eliminate judicial oversight over surveillance, authorize secret arrests, create a DNA database based on unchecked executive ‘suspicion,’ create new death penalties, and even seek to take American citizenship away from persons who belong to or support disfavored political groups."

As reported on 20 February 2003 in the The News & Observer, Former Republican congressman Bob Barr observed that the proposed legislation in the DSEA seeks “all sorts of powers far beyond what any normal person would deem necessary to fight terrorists acts.” This “Son of the Patriot Act”—which General Ashcroft’s department would not acknowledge existed when queried for months by Congressional staffers—provides more indications of how Bush II would like redefine the constitutional basis of America. There are many, many Sections of this draft law that merit attention and scrutiny. Only a very few are mentioned below.

Hypertext copy of the especially significant sections of the “USA PATRIOT Act” and the draft of the “Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003” texts, as well as extensive analysis of both of these products of General Ashcroft’s "Department of Justice” are available at: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/USAPA.html.

It is possible to use the rule of law to challenge Bush II. Purchase, study, and highlite examples from “How to Use ‘New’ Civil Rights Laws after 9-11,” Ann Ginger editor, published by Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute with 68 cases won in US courts on torture, illegal detention, deportation, etc., using the United Nations Charter & treaties.

With all the stories being presented in commercial media by body snatcher/twilight zone types as so-called reality, it is a fundamental necessity to emphasize the specific ways in which our world has been defined by the rule of law, especially since World War II, and how this structure has been rejected by the United States government since September 11th. Although Bush II pretends they are not accountable to such rules, they are criminally liable, they know it, and they fear this. The following list enumerates some of the more significant violations of domestic and international laws, treaties, and conventions as well as deceptions being carried out primarily against the American populace.

International law Professor Francis Boyle worked with former Congressman Henry Gonzalez (D-TX) and former United States Attorney General Ramsey Clark to write the five articles of impeachment against George Herbert Walker Bush which Representative Gonzalez introduced into the House on 16 January 1991.

In early 2003 Professor Boyle wrote a Draft Impeachment Resolution Against President George W. Bush detailing six articles of impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors with the hope of finding a member of Congress willing to introduce this into the process of the United States federal government. This present-day draft catalogs the violations of Bush’s constitutional oath of office, violations of United States domestic laws, as well as violations of international laws, treaties, and conventions. Many of these are enumerated in the following References section.

Author Terry Tempest Williams’ account of the Code-Pink Rally in Washington D.C. on March 8th gives voice to what exists within each and every one of us:

To witness Alice [Walker]’s deep calm—and then to hear her speak of meeting Martin Luther King as a young woman in high school. She said, “I now understand that his calm came from being a free man, he was his own sovereign, his obligation was to follow his own conscience.”

Each of us must follow and answer to our own conscience.

• Essential Foundations of Law
• International Law Bodies
• International Treaties
• International Conventions
• Conventions and Rules of War
• Laws and Resolutions of the United States
• Reports, Articles and Texts

   

  Essential Foundations of Law:
  
  
  
  • United States Constitution
    Presentation version by FindLaw - Law, Lawyers and Legal Professionals:
            http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/constitution/
    Presentation version by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA):
            http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/constitution/conmain.html
    Presentation version by Emory University School of Law
            http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst.html
    Bill of Rights
            http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/BillOfRights.html
    
    
    
  • Charter of the United Nations, 26 June 1945
    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/unchart.htm
    Article 2
    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/unchart.htm#art2
    Article 33
    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/unchart.htm#art33
    Article 51
    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/unchart.htm#art51
    Article 53
    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/unchart.htm#art53
    
    
    
  • Nuremberg War Crimes Trials - The International Military Tribunal for Germany, 1945
    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/imt.htm
    
    
  • Nuremberg Charter of the International Military Tribunal, 8 August 1945
    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/imtconst.htm
    Article 6 (a)   CRIMES AGAINST PEACE
    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/imtconst.htm#art6
    
    
  • Nuremberg Tribunal Judgment of the International Military Tribunal
    for the Trial of German Major War Criminals, 30 September and 1 October 1946
    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/judcont.htm
    
    
  • Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal, International Law Commission, United Nations, 1950
    http://www.un.org/law/ilc/texts/nurnfra.htm

   

  International Law Bodies:
  
  
  • International Criminal Court
    www.icc-cpi.int
    The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 17 July 1998
    http://www.un.org/law/icc/
    Article 7(I)(i)
    http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/99_corr/2.htm#art.7
    Know The Truth About The International Criminal Court
    by Benjamin B Ferencz, prosecutor at the Nuremberg war crimes trials, July 2002
    http://www.benferencz.org/julynews.htm
    
    
  • International Court of Justice (also referred to as The World Court)
    www.icj-cij.org
    World Court Advisory Opinion:
    Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (1994-1996)
    http://212.153.43.18/icjwww/icases/iunan/iunanframe.htm

   

  International Treaties:
  
  
  • Kellogg-Briand Pact, 27 August 1928
    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/kbpact/kbpact.htm
    Article I
    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/kbpact/kbpact.htm#art1
    Article II
    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/kbpact/kbpact.htm#art2
    
    
  • Anti Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty
    http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/abmt/
    
    
  • Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
    http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/
    
    
  • Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)
    http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/ctbt/
    
    
  • The North Atlantic Treaty, 4 April 1949
    http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm
    Article 5
    http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm#Art05
    
    
  • Treaty of Nonaggression Between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 23 August 1939
    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/nonagres.htm
    Secret Additional Protocol, on spheres of influence in Eastern Europe
    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/addsepro.htm

   

  International Conventions:
  
  
  • Biological Weapons Convention
    http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/bwc/
    
    
  • Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety
    of Civil Aviation, 23 September 1971
    http://www.jurisint.org/pub/01/en/doc/213_1.htm
    
    
  • Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 9 December 1948
    http://www.preventgenocide.org/law/convention/
    
    
  • Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 24 April 1963
    http://www.un.org/law/ilc/texts/consul.htm
    
    
  • International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 4 Jan 1969
    http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/d1cerd.htm

   

  Conventions and Rules of War:
  
  
  • Hague Conventions of 1907:
    Hague I - Pacific Settlement of International Disputes : 18 Oct 1907
    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/pacific.htm
    Hague II - Limitation of Employment of Force for Recovery of Contract Debts : 18 Oct 1907
    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague072.htm
    Hague III - Opening of Hostilities : 18 Oct 1907
    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague03.htm
    Hague IV - Laws and Customs of War on Land : 18 Oct 1907
    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague04.htm
    Hague V - Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land : 18 Oct 1907
    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague05.htm
    Hague VI - Status of Enemy Merchant Ships at the Outbreak of Hostilities : 18 Oct 1907
    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague06.htm
    Hague VII - Conversion of Merchant Ships into War Ships : 18 Oct 1907
    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague07.htm
    Hague VIII - - Laying of Automatic Submarine Contact Mines : 18 Oct 1907
    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague08.htm
    Hague IX - Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War : 18 Oct 1907
    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague09.htm
    Hague X - Adaptation to Maritime War of the Principles of the Geneva Convention : 18 Oct 1907
    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague10.htm
    Hague XI - Restrictions With Regard to the Exercise of the Right of Capture in Naval War : 18 Oct 1907
    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague11.htm
    Hague XIII - Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War : 18 Oct 1907
    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague13.htm
    Draft Rules of Aerial Warfare - The Hague, February 1923
    http://www.dannen.com/decision/int-law.html#C
    
    
  • Geneva Conventions of 1949:
    Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, August 12, 1949
    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva05.htm
    Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, August 12, 1949
    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva06.htm
    Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War; August 12, 1949
    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm
    Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949
    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva07.htm
    
    
  • Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977
    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/GenevaPI1977.html
    Article 54(I)
    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/GenevaPI1977.html#art54
    
    
  • U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 - The Law of Land Warfare (1956)
    http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/~nstanton/FM27-10.htm

   

  Laws and Resolutions of the United States:
  
  
  • Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989
    http://www.sunshine-project.org/bwintro/uscode.html
    
    
  • The War Powers Resolution, Public Law 93-148, 7 November 1973
    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/warpower.htm
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/warpower/
    
    
  • Tonkin Gulf Resolution, H.J. RES 1145, 7 August 1964
    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/tonkin-g.htm

   

  Reports, Articles and Texts:
  
  
  • Imbalance of Powers: How Changes to U.S. Law & Policy Since 9/11 Erode Human Rights and Civil Liberties, September 2002 to March 2003, Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, 11 March 2003
    http://www.lchr.org/us_law/loss/loss_main.htm
    http://www.lchr.org/us_law/loss/imbalance/powers.pdf
    A Year of Loss, Reexamining Civil Liberties since September 11, 1 September 2002
    http://www.lchr.org/pubs/descriptions/loss_report.pdf
    Since September 11th - A Chronology of the Government’s Restrictions on Civil Liberties,
    September 2001 to November 2002
    http://www.lchr.org/us_law/loss/timeline/timeline.pdf
    
    
  • G.W.Bush Was Never Elected President
    Conyers Releases First Fifty-State Survey of Election Irregularities, and Executive Summary
    http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/electioncommreptpr73101.pdf
    How To Make Over One Million Votes Disappear:
    Electoral Sleight Of Hand In The 2000 Presidential Election (122 pages), A Fifty-State Report Prepared for Rep. John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member, House Committee on the Judiciary, Dean, Congressional Black Caucus, Democratic Investigative Staff, House Committee on the Judiciary, August 20, 2001.
    http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/electionreport.pdf
    Bush v. Gore: A Resolution of Censure
    www.censurethefive.org
    The Supreme Court Five Censure Campaign, including
    "A Draft Resolution of Congressional Censure Against United States Supreme Court Justices Kennedy, O’Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas for Their Betrayal of the American People and the United States Constitution Displayed in the Decisions of Bush v. Gore”
    http://www.censurethefive.org/counts.html
    http://www.censurethefive.org/resolution.pdf
    
    
  • From the Church Committee reports, see
    Final Report of the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities of the United States Senate, 94th Congress, 2nd Session, 1976:
    • Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans, Book II
    • Supplementary Detailed Staff Reports on Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans, Book III
    http://www.derechos.net/paulwolf/cointelpro/cointel.htm#ChurchComRpts
    Hearings Before the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities of the United States Senate, 94th Congress, 1st Session, 1975:
    • Volume 5: The National Security Agency and Fourth Amendment Rights
    http://cryptome.org/nsa-4th.htm
    
    
  • COINTELPRO, the FBI’s domestic “counterintelligence programs”
    to neutralize political dissidents
    www.cointel.org
    
    
  • Responsibility for the terrorist atrocities in the United States, 4 October 2001
    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/linkscopy/page3554.html
    
    
  • Wartime and the Bill of Rights: The Korematsu Case , Constitutional Rights Foundation
    http://www.crf-usa.org/terror/korematsu.htm
    
    
  • Name the Detainees, by Senator Russell Feingold, Washington Post, 23 December 2001
    http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1223-01.htm
    
    
  • Hundreds Are Detained After Visits to INS
    Thousands protest arrests of Mideast boys and men who complied with order to register , by Megan Garvey, Martha Groves and Henry Weinstein, Los Angeles Times, 19 December 2002
    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1219-09.htm
    George W Bush’s America
    Civil Rights Groups Protest Detentions of Middle Eastern Men in US,
    Agence France Presse, 20 December 2002
    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1220-01.htm
    
    
  • The Federalist Society: From Obscurity to Power - The Right-Wing Lawyers Who Are Shaping The Bush Administration’s Decisions On Legal Policies and Judicial Nominations,
    by People For the American Way Foundation, Aug 2001
    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/feddieSoc.html
    The Federalist Society - The Conservative Cabal That’s Transforming American Law,
    by Jerry Landay, The Washington Monthly, March 2002
    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0003.landay.html
    Federalist Society: Hijacking Justice, by George E. Curry & Trevor W. Coleman, Emerge, 10/99
    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/hijakjustice.html
    
    
  • U.S. Bombing Watch: When was the last time the U.S. Bombed Iraq?
    A service of the Colorado Campaign for Middle East Peace, Denver
    http://www.ccmep.org/us_bombing_watch.html
    
    
  • Operation Phoenix / The Phoenix Program
    Flight of the Phoenix: From Vietnam to Homeland Security
    An Open Letter to Maj. Gen. Bruce Lawlor
    by Douglas Valentine, CounterPunch, 25 August 2002
    http://www.counterpunch.org/valentine0824.html
    Homeland Insecurity Part Two: Phoenix And The Anatomy Of Terror
    by Douglas Valentine, CounterPunch, 8 November 2001
    http://www.counterpunch.org/homeland2.html
    Vietnam’s Phoenix Program, by Ralph McGehee, 1996
    http://www.vwip.org/articles/m/McGeheeRalph_VietnamsPhoenixProgram.htm
    
    
  • The Clash of Civilizations, by Samuel Huntington, Foreign Affairs, 1993
    http://www.alamut.com/subj/economics/misc/clash.html
    International Centre for Dialogue Among Civilizations
    www.dialoguecentre.org
    
    
  • Hiroshima Peace Site including Memorial Museum
    http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/peacesite/indexE.html
    
    
  • Secret Plan Outlines the Unthinkable
    A secret policy review of the nation’s nuclear policy puts forth chilling new contingencies for nuclear war, by William M. Arkin, Los Angeles Times, 10 Mar 2002
    http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0309-04.htm
    
    
  • Trident Ploughshares - Greenock 1999,
    Sheriff Gimblett’s Report on the Greenock Trial, 21 August 2000
    http://www.tridentploughshares.org/greenock/largimb.html
    Ploughshares Movement
    http://www.tridentploughshares.org/html/ploughs.html
    
    
  • Star Wars
    http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/
    
    
  • National Missile Defense
    http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/nmd/
    
    
  • Broadening Our Perspectives of 11 September 2001, by David T. Ratcliffe September 2002
    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/AOPof911toc.html
    
    
  • Crimes Against Humanity on ratical includes sections on:
    • Afghanistan
      http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/cahAfghan.html
      
    • Martial Law
      http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/cahML.html
      
    • Iraq
      http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/cahIraq.html
      
    • Imposition of a Police State in America
      http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/cahPS.html