Obama is a War Criminal
Sunday, April 3, 2011 at 06:29AM By Nathaniel Gurien
Nobel Peace Prize winner President Barack Obama should be impeached immediately then prosecuted for war crimes for making unprovoked war on Libya in direct violation of the US Constitution, in abuse of the limited War Powers Resolution of 1973, and in violation of international law prohibiting the unprovoked invasion of sovereign nations.
During his campaign for president, constitutional scholar Obama stated unequivocally and in writing:
“The President does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
The Constitution specifically reserves the following powers EXCLUSIVELY to Congress: “TO DECLARE WAR…. make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies…; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for….. the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia…” and so on.
Libya did not attack the US; Libya is not a threat to the US. The pretext of “humanitarian intervention” is a transparent big lie.
If his humanitarian pretext was sincere, where’s our war criminal president’s similar concern about the killing of innocent civilians in IRAQ, PAKISTAN, AFGHANISTAN, YEMEN, PALESTINE, BAHRAIN & SOMALIA, most of where he already has civilian blood on his hands? How protected do you think innocent civilians feel when the missiles and bombs we’re dropping on them are tipped with depleted uranium?
To understand how absurd on its face this pretext is, imagine if instead of the US, it was Iran that invaded Libya. Do you think anyone would blindly accept that its credible intention was the humanitarian protection of civilians solely or at all?
Why hasn’t our news media reported that hundreds of US, British and French military “advisors”, including intelligence officers and special forces were dropped from warships and missile boats at the coastal towns of Benghazi and Tobruk on Thursday, February 24th for a covert mission that included co-opting the uprising, organizing locals into paramilitary units, teaching them how to use the weapons they captured from Libyan army facilities, providing military and combat training and preparing infrastructure for the intake of additional foreign troops? (www.debka.com/article/20708).
As recently revealed in the NY Times, the leaders of the “freedom-loving” rebels are directly supported American puppets who co-opted and empowered the fledgling rebellion, and appear to have in fact fomented and organized it to begin with. Just as in Iraq, we have our ‘Ahmed Chalabi’ in place to take over as soon as we overthrow Qaddafi. (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/03/26/111109/new-rebel-leader-spent-much-of.html)
These facts alone alter the whole complexion of this enterprise rather dramatically, don’t you think?
As an interesting footnote, why do the rebels in Benghazi use as their flag the red, black and green banner with the crescent and star (the flag of the monarchy of King Idris) which symbolized the rule of the former colonial powers? Couldn’t the CIA’s graphics dept at least design them their own flag? I guess they thought we wouldn’t notice.
Of course, our true objective of invading Libya is not the propaganda canard of establishing democracy or saving civilian lives, but twofold: 1. to take possession of Libya’s oil and gas reserves and transfer its wealth (including 3.5% of the world’s oil reserves, more than twice that of the US) into foreign hands. For more on this see: (www.globalreasearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23605) 2. with Libya one of the last sovereign nations (along with Syria & Lebanon) not under our domination in the Mediterranean, and Qaddaffi having refused to join our ‘Mediterranean Dialogue’, NATO’s ‘Partnership for Peace’ and/or the US Africa Command (AFRICOM), the US is vitally interested in toppling and dominating Libya to cement its imperial grip on the region. (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23940)
And don’t forget the billions of dollars of Libyan assets in deposited in Western banks that the US and its confederates plan to steal.
The US dollar is the world’s reserve currency. If Libya wants to sell its oil to other nations it is obliged to accept payment in US dollars. So the US recently placed hard sanctions on Libya prohibiting any trade in US dollars in anticipation of this planned invasion. Now international banks refuse to exchange US dollars with Libya so they can’t sell their oil except via limited back channels, thus putting a severe squeeze on their economy. (http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFLDE7271YJ20110308).
Our repeatedly tried and proven playbook for conquest, now being reprised in Libya is: (1) Destabilize the nation’s economy; (2) Foment tribal, ethnic and/or sectional strife via provocateurs, puppets and false-flag operations; (3) Inject disinformation, propaganda and psy-ops directed within the country and to the outside world, especially in the US; (4) covertly support with arms, money and training, then install and recognize our puppet(s) as our new ‘democratic partners’.
Sound familiar? Light the fuse, get away fast, use under adult supervision, right?
Further evidence of advance invasion planning is the fact that financial institutions which had prior knowledge or intelligence of events in Libya have already made billions of dollars in speculative gains in the futures and options markets for crude oil. Advance knowledge of political or military events and how they affect markets combined with manipulation and/or control of financial news relevant to these events are indispensible to this investment racket.
It should come as no surprise that powerful institutional speculators on Wall Street with links to the US military and intelligence establishment are raking in billions of dollars in speculative gains not only in the oil market but also in the commodity and foreign exchange markets.
Whatever one thinks about the policy of destabilizing, invading and stealing the resources of sovereign nations, it is illegal, unconstitutional and a war crime. Our congressional representatives, as corrupt as most of them may be, are being denied their constitutionally-mandated right to declare or not declare war on our behalf that then demands our lives, our honor and our money.
President Obama is not just our first black president. He is also our first undisputed Emperor, and is lording over the final transformation of our democratic republic into a ‘big dog’ corporate ‘banana republic’ at home and a vast and powerful empire abroad.
Nathaniel Gurien lives in North Conway and is the Executive Director of NH Asks, Inc., a non-profit, non-partisan organization which promotes full disclosure, truth and civility in our political discourse. He may be reached at: nathaniel@nh-asks.org
Egypt, Libya, President Obama, Wars
Reader Comments (3)
EXCELLENT
But if the U.S. and its allies don't intervene here who will.
Where are most of the world's supertanker fleet registered?
I enjoyed your post.
Setting aside the label of "war criminal", I do agree that Obama exceeded his authorized powers based on the text and intent of the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
If any recent president were to show restraint and reign in the de facto war powers of the presidency I would have thought Obama could do that. Understanding the desire not to preempt the UN Security Council, why couldn't the administration have prepared Congress for a vote in the 12 hours *after* the passage of UN Resolution but *before* commencing air strikes? One could certainly cite practical issues either getting the vote completed or coordinating with allies prior to the strike but I don't find them compelling. Modern communication technology make the task of coordinating and obtaining a Congressional vote easier, not harder. At the root: do we want President unilaterally beginning military action (=war) without Congressional consent? Laws on the books clearly say no.
More generally, it does feel that Obama has lost the plot in the last few months. From listening to the news and the last few Sunday mornings of talking heads, it feels that he's been bullied into this action. No one can know how it will go, but we're dropping our arsenal in yet another country where we've also got spies on the ground supporting groups of people we know hardly anything about. Surely the choice was no-win for Obama, either the quagmire of military action and civil war intervention as we have now or be pilloried for not taking action. Still, I don't empathize. Our president is hired to make their best decision regardless of these sorts of pressures.
One of the things that I wonder most watching the last few presidents is the forces that cause them to conduct military action, deploy the CIA, etc. The CIA especially has become a presidential crutch serving as a gray option short of overt military action and with far less public scrutiny. What causes these presidents to so uniformly give in to appeals for military action? Is it the guilt of not offering a helping hand to foreigners in need? The fear of appearing impotent for not taking action--some action, any action?
Let's get the left and right to come together into a circle on this one issue: call a vote on the military operations in Libya. If Congressional authorization is not obtained then the administration has good notice of their obligation to pull out completely (and that includes spies). This is a matter of, among other things, proper procedure and quality of governance.
As a final note, I don't agree on the Wall Street tie in. There's plenty to slam the banks for lately, and they do benefit from price volatility in commodities and other markets (I've worked on an oil trading desk at one from the group of sell side institutions to which you refer so know this first hand), but I don't believe the financial community are the driving force behind this operation.
-Greg