The Decision to Bomb Syria is Criminal

In the United Nations charter article 2(4) the members of United Nations have agreed on a prohibition towards violence between states. More specifically it is stated that all members shall refrain in their international relations from 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. From the wording of this paragraph it is clear that violence cannot be accepted in the international relationships between states. Considering the history of the United Nations, and why it was created, it is not strange that such a provision was included in the charter. The charter was agreed upon immediately after the Second World War, a war that claimed more than 60 million people. For the people back than, that first hand had experienced the horrors of war, it was common sense to make sure that states would not anymore be allowed to engage in violent conflict.

Sadly, this provision have many times been abused, misinterpreted, and misused. The charter allows for armed conflict in some instances, and that is as a measure of self-defense, when the Security Counsel approves it, which is when there is a threat to international peace and security, and when the armed forces of another nation are invited. There are no other exceptions but these to the prohibition of the use of force. However, it is obvious that charter has not been respected throughout the years. United States is one of those countries that several times have moved against the prohibition on violence. The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, and now, the bombings in Syria, these are not in alignment with the charter, the Security Counsel has not approved them, and hence, according to international law, they are illegal.

Unfortunately the legality of these actions is debated. Both Britain and the US have claimed that their ‘interventions’ in Syria are legally sound in that the cause of action is self-defense, and that they have an invitation from Iraq to help protect their country from the Islamic State. In terms of self-defense, the argument used is that ISIL represents a threat to both the US and Britain.

The problem with this type of reasoning, this constant nitpicking and interpretation of the UN-charter is that the prohibition on use of force is slowly being drained of all substance and meaning. And what is missed in the judicial debate is the true intention behind the UN-charter. In the preamble of the charter, the very first words written down are the following:

“We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow”

The Vienna Convention on the Laws of Treaties is the legal instrument that governs how conventions are to be applied and interpreted. How treaties are to be interpreted is laid down in article 31, where is stated that:

‘A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose’

It cannot be made clearer that the purpose of the charter is to abolish bloodshed. War is not an acceptable condition – and that must be the starting point from which the charter is interpreted and applied. It is obvious that if you start nitpicking, and deliberately look for loopholes and ways to legitimize war, you will be able to do that. Though that is not how the charter is supposed to be read and applied. That is not an honest and respectful way of reading and applying the charter, but rather a devious and deceptive way of circumventing principles, and rules placed by previous generations that first hand experienced the horrors of war.

The use of force can never be humanitarian. The use of force can never be justified on the grounds that it furthers democracy and human rights. AND – more importantly – the Use of Force cannot be justified within the bounds of the UN-charter through shaky legal arguments based on nitpicking and deviously interpreting words with a clear meaning, a clear purpose, and a clear context. The UN-charter is and will always stand as an instrument of peace, and by implication does not allow use of force, and any form of leeway from that main rule must be interpreted restrictively.

A problem with the charter is that, even though a country might be found guilty of breaching international law, it does not make state leaders personally liable for their decisions. Hence, in our current system, it is possible for state leaders to make unlawful decisions, causing massive suffering, without consequence. This does not make sense, just as civilians are able to face consequences when they commit murder, so should leaders and decision makers face consequences when they make decisions that, in breach of international and humanitarian laws, cause thousands upon thousands to die.

At the moment, the United Nations is more of a farce than an empowered institution capable of having real impact, and the charter, more of a document with words that sounds nice, rather than a document of principles that are lived for real. This can all be changed. The United Nations does have the potential of becoming a World Organ that can stand as a pillar of stability in difficult and tough times. For that to happen, changes must be made, and those changes must come from within the individual nations themselves. Because the United Nations, is an organization of countries that has united, and will as such only be as impactful as the involved countries allow it to be.

And here, we, the countries located in the western hemisphere have a great responsibility. Because at the moment, we have the means, we have the military strength, we have the influence, and in that, we have the opportunity to change the direction in which our world is currently moving. Even as individuals, we have the opportunity to make a difference. Because it us that elect our leaders, it us that inhabit and make up the constituency of our countries – and thus we are responsible for the actions of our leaders even though we admit that or not.

Peace is a Human Right, and the Use of Force is a Crime against Human Rights as well as International Law, and we all, regardless of where we are born, deserve a life in which our Human Rights are honored.

Day 17 The Purpose of Criminal Laws

Here I would like to bring some considerations for anyone interested into understand how our criminal law actually functions.

In every single civilization that we have constructed as humanity, it seems like there is always something going terribly wrong, but somehow we perceive that to be outside of ourselves, and this has been going for a quite long period of time in our entire civilization as humanity, the criminal law is at the end, just the reflection of how we search for someone to blame for the current existence of the entire humanity and how is it that we haven´t looked within ourselves to see that which we project outside of us, which to me seems like the most retrograde way of dealing with something that is actually the very reason of our “enslavement to HUMAN NATURE”, in each period, in each ideology, the principle of polarity seems to be what direct this idea that apparently there is someone that is simply evil in this world, and within that, that we are able to justify “our right to live” by removing or punishing that part of ourselves that we have simply projected onto another person so that we are able to preserve our “way of living”…

The fundamental principle of every law is to preserve the social order, this order implies that each and every single human being participating in the system is subdued to the rules imposed onto them by an external will that will only act accordingly to the principles that has been determined to it by the same society who accepts and allows such will to rule and manifest itself as the “law”.

The government is nothing else that the will imposed by the same people in order to preserve the order that they believe that “is how the world works”, this principle is named as “the ought” = what the things should be, I don´t have to tell you how much manipulation has taken place to make the people believe in a certain ideology, which manifestation can be traced way back of the existence of the Greeks and even before with the Codes of Hammurabi and so on, and so on.

Yet the same history repeats itself over and over again, and the systems always see their end with each and every single new ideology, why? Because it’s interesting that a criminal only becomes such as the ideology takes place in the mind of the people, educated to see the world and perceive the reality in a certain way. “As more laws are written more criminals are created” – Lao Tzu – 

The government implies a force given to it by the people, as A RIGHT, given to a particular person “trained and instructed on applying the rules that the same society demands in their search of the preservation of the social order” (The judges in the beginning were isolated from all the society and they were teach to be and live only what the laws demands of them as the “representation of this ghostly manifestation called justice”, this of course had for consequence the manifestation of certain events on the history like the inquisition) this right is called in Latin “Ius Punniendi” which means the right to punish, this right is the power given to the state by the people, to take and improve “the necessary means to resolve the problems to maintain the social order” this also implies the creation and establishments of reforms to the system that the government perceive as necessary as long that this maintains the social order.

It’s fascinating how it seems that we are trying to “fight something or someone out there instead of realizing that is each and every single one of us, that by existing in the search of our self-interests, created the current state in which we live in”, the principle is that “each person is following their desires, therefore as each and every single one of us, has this inner movement of self-interests as desires, wishes, wants and needs, each and every single one of us is a treat to each other and therefore we must incarcerate each other so that we are able to be free…from each other…because our interests are at risk of someone else taking them…all of this because we have not been able to understand that as long as we remain in our little bubble of desires, wishes, wants and needs, everyone is subdued and prisoners of each other, and afraid of each other, and that is why we cannot trust another human being, because we cannot even trust ourselves, because we know what we are capable of doing to get that which we want, that is why wars exist, that is why criminals exist.

The following fragment is from the blog: Day 32 - The Tyranny of Financialization

You can read the complete blog by following the link below:

http://politicianjourney.blogspot.mx/2013/06/day-32-tyranny-of-financialization.html#sthash.07k2u9vM.dpuf

Frankenstein's Monster

The ability to create money out of nothing and collect interest on lending it out to borrowers, and being able to sell and repackage those debts into financial instruments that could then be used to speculate on and influence other markets such as food, government bonds, and commodities spread like wildfire throughout the financial system - and across the world these financial instruments were sold, repackaged, and then sold again so many times that its original value has can no longer be determined, but the debt that was created when the instrument was sold could not be discharged or forgiven because it was impossible to pay back something that was created out of nothing, and demands more than nothing as repayment.

BEING ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT YOU CANNOT GIVE BACK MORE THAN WHAT IS GIVEN TO YOU UNLESS YOU TAKE FROM SOMEBODY ELSE IS THE ONLY KEY THAT ANYONE NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO SEE THROUGH THE TRICKERY AND DECEPTION OF THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM AND ANYTHING THAT HAS COME OUT OF ITS HYBRID BREEDING CHAMBERS THAT HAVE PRODUCED THE ILLUSION OF PROFIT AND GROWTH - because the only thing that has grown is the amount of money the financial elite have been able to keep for themselves while the debt is constantly being pushed onto the majority trying to pay back something that can never be repaid. 

The ultimate purpose of the laws is to preserve the social order, my right ends where the yours begin; our rights is not what we desire, is not “what we demand as our interest”, the rights should be that which is inherent to life, as each and every single living being, has the right of fulfilling their needs, and…I mean ironically, we have come to a planet that provides all of those requirements for free, but we have the audacity to place a tag with a price on it…

Now, here my question is: Is it really that is not enough for everyone in this world or is it just that we have never taken the fucking initiative to share what we have? Being afraid of sharing cannot be justified as “the means to survival”, the social order SHOULD BE for the survival of the group, and not only humanity, but all forms and expressions of life in this world, a world that is best for all, only requires of all of us to realize that, that we are already on a planet that is already and has been always able to sustain all of us, because it has been doing it since our first breath here, that is why we still exist, there is no problem with the planet, or the sun, it is humanity, we know that, we have always known that. But we remained in silence, because we wanted to remain safe, that is why we also accept wars to take place, we see someone interfering with our interests as the evil guy and we accept others to die, and our loved ones to go to their imminent destruction so that we can be safe, so that our interests are safe. We may think that those people are the ones that create the problems in the society, yet, maybe they think the same about us…The “modernity” is the moment when we see consider that “the criminal out there” may be see us as the same treat to their interests, maybe the solution is as simple as just sharing…and to understand this I suggest you to invest in the following interviews to understand this:

My Life as a Robber

https://eqafe.com/p/life-review-my-life-as-a-robber

Is Crime a Choice?

https://eqafe.com/p/life-review-is-crime-a-choice

My Life as a Bully

https://eqafe.com/p/life-review-my-life-as-a-bully

Next blog will be about Forgiveness and the Law System, “did you know that forgiveness exists on laws?” investigate it.