THOU SHALT NOT WAGE A RELIGIOUS CRUSADE IN THE NAME OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, by Dr. Steven Nur Ahmed

 

Crusade 1

Millions of right wing religious and secular conservatives in the Republican party are increasing their push to repress Islam and Muslims in the United States. Those same people and the media which propagandize their views are also voices for war against Islam and therefore against all Muslims in the world. Except for the exercise of their own right to freedom of speech, Donald Trump’s (and Republicans like him) proposed State and Federal policies for Muslims are unconstitutional because they would restrict Muslim speech and are thus tyrannical by definition.  

Those same people and media intentionally ignore those parts of the first amendment which do not serve their immediate political agenda but nevertheless run parallel to the right to free speech.

Muslims may practice their religious beliefs in the United States because “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”. Here, the preposition ‘respecting’ means that no ‘religious beliefs’ in the United States can be legally recognized as a natural nor legal person under the law. A religious belief is not constitutionally required to be incorporated under States’ corporate laws and thus need not be a ‘legal person’. The term ‘establishment’ means simply ‘articulable beliefs’ even in the absence of any concrete infrastructure.

For example, a specific set of religious beliefs cannot be sued in civil court. Nor can a warrant be issued under the fourth amendment to arrest a ‘religious belief’ to appear in a criminal court because all religious beliefs operate outside the jurisdiction of both civil and criminal law. That is what it means to have ‘religious freedom’ in the United States. Therefore, Islamic beliefs held by persons in the United States cannot be criminalized nor can ‘Islamic beliefs’ be named as a tortfeasor in a civil complaint. 

Islam as a set of beliefs cannot be legally prohibited from being believed by people and Islamic beliefs cannot be prohibited from being practiced in the United States and its protectorates. That is so because only ‘natural persons’ who commit an act which violates a State or Federal statute, or crime against humanity can be arrested and denied freedom under either State or Federal criminal law. 

Crusade 2

No ‘natural person’ who commits a crime in the name of a particular religion can be charged in the name of his or her religion; only a person or group of persons can be charged with violation of a clearly defined criminal statute. Further, beliefs cannot be criminally charged because neither state nor federal law can ‘recognize’ the ‘beliefs’ of a religion.

Islamic faith is not a natural or legal person. Therefore, only an individual or corporation that commits a criminal act can be held responsible even though he or she or it may claim to be Islamic. For Islamic religious beliefs cannot ‘act’ to commit crimes. Nor can Islamic religious beliefs form an ‘intent’ to commit a criminal act. Both common law and statutory law clearly state that only natural persons and legal persons can form an intent and commit an act that violates a State or Federal criminal statute.

Therefore, it would be unconstitutional for any state or for the federal government to indict a natural person as being identical to a ‘religious belief’ or to indict a religious belief as being identical to a ‘natural or legal person’.  Such a distinction between a person’s actions and his or her ‘religious beliefs’ is a manifestation of the legal superiority of the first amendment precept of separation of church and state. A man or woman cannot be detained nor killed for his or her religious beliefs. 

Neither would it be constitutional under the first amendment for the federal government to wage war against Islam anywhere for crimes committed by an individual or group of individuals even though those people may claim to be adherents to Islamic beliefs. For to wage war against Islam everywhere would be to wage war not against natural persons but against ‘Islamic religious beliefs’ and the idea which gives rise to those beliefs and therefore it would be war against all Muslims in the United States, too.

Welcome to Earth Colony: WE, THE PEOPLE, ARE IN CHARGE!

 

war2

Though the moral argument for a ‘just war’ has its roots in older Indian texts; the Western world traces the theory to St. Augustine of Hippo, St. Thomas Aquinas, and later schools of thought in Europe.  The idea is based upon ‘proportionate justice’.  Proportionate justice in turn is based upon the assumption that rewards and punishments can be meted out rationally and thus fairly.

The theory of just war belies yet another assumption.  That assumption is that moral people can determine whether or not an act of military aggression is justified based upon facts and if warranted how much aggression should be acted out on an aggressor.

They also argued that a war is unjust and illegitimate if it is rationalized on the grounds of ‘national self-interests’, ‘individual interests’ or if the people needed to support the war do not want war.  Here, they clearly assumed that a democratic scale of measure would be used to make decisions on war and peace.

One problem the American people face is that the plutocrats who have amassed control of Federal and State governments do not act upon moral grounds unless the consequences of doing so will benefit them.  We are left with this fact.  Plutocrats generally are amoral persons and some of them are evil.  Therefore, theological or philosophical moral arguments against a military strike on Syria would not be persuasive to them.

Yet another problem faced by the American people is the problem of ‘legality’.  One might think that even in the absence of theology and or philosophy at least there can be a consensus on rules or law.  But plutocrats bend, change, and ignore laws so that no matter what the circumstance their purposes are served.

The Constitution vests the American people with the power to declare war and to fund war.  Limited wars must also be approved by Congress.  Neither the President nor the Supreme Court has inherent war power.  That power is solely vested in the People who at the end of the day fight the wars and shed blood.  Nevertheless, the facts of history compel us to be on notice.

5,000 years of human history afford us not only a clear understanding about the nature of war and the kinds of persons who wage it but of the reasons for which war is waged.  War is waged to dominate, control, exploit, and profiteer off more peaceful folk and their resources.  Wars waged for those purposes are not waged on principles of legality.  On the contrary, they are waged outside of civilized law unless those laws benefit those whose intent is to plunder the wealth of others.

Therefore, arguments on the legality of a strike against Syria would not be persuasive to those who intend to wage war.  They push aside all rules of evidence that stand in their way.  For example,

One method used by the plutocrats is the ‘false-flag’ method. It is analogous to a police officer planting a gun on an innocent person or claiming that he or she saw a gun to justify either arresting or killing that innocent person.

Hitler used a false-flag to trigger the invasion of Poland.  Sixty million (60) dead later the Nuremberg War Crimes Hearing had to sort out and weigh the evil involved in World War 2.

Lyndon Johnson used a false-flag to arouse public sentiment for bombing North Vietnam.  Thirty five years later and over 50,000 dead Robert McNamara confessed that it was an unjust war. See the documentary: ‘The Fog of War’.

George Bush used a false-flag to argue that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and to arouse the American people to bomb and invade Iraq.  Now, over 50,000 casualties and 1.5 trillion dollars later it is generally acknowledged that the allegations against Iraq were false. Now, it is President Barak Obama.

The plutocrats in a faceoff with the American people subscribe to a Darwinian world view.  They are persuaded that conflict is a universal law of nature and that the stronger necessarily dominate the weaker in nature and so, too, in politics.  Theirs is an amoral theory of justice in an amoral universe, but they are rational.  It is the zero sum game; it is the game of ‘all or nothing’ they play.  So, what argument must be used by the American people to persuade them to stand down?

Only a utilitarian argument will persuade them. The American people must make a utilitarian argument to the plutocrats who have amassed control over the White House and much of Congress.  That argument to them must be that the cost of them acting against the will of the American people will immeasurably outweigh what they augur their gains or benefits to be from war with Syria.  They must be persuaded to understand that what Congress now knows is that a military strike against Syria is against the will of the people. They must be persuaded that torrents of rage will rain down on Congress and the lobbyist they are financially beholden to if the will of the people is ignored and that the rage will be unbearable.

Neither the President nor the Supreme Court has war power.  War power is solely vested in the People of the United States who at the end of the day are those who fight the wars and suffer loss of blood.  We the People must make it categorically and unequivocally clear to all that we, the People, are in charge of this government.

 

 

 

Welcome to Earth Colony: THE BIG LIE, by Dr. Steven Nur Ahmed

dead_hadji_91_829small

The Constitution is clear on the power to declare war.  Only Congress can declare war[1] and only Congress can approve funding for war. The Constitution and Federal statutes are also clear on the definition of inherent executive power to use military force against foreign nations without congressional approval if the security of the United States is threatened or it is under imminent attack.[2]

Most United States Congressional legislators are trained to be lawyers.  If they are not trained to be lawyers then at least they are knowledgeable of the United States Constitution and Federal Statutes, particularly the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Since the discovery that some form of sarin gas was used in Syria which resulted in the deaths of several hundred persons, a debate has evolved between Congress and President Barak Obama.  It is a debate on War Power.

The issue presented to the public is whether or not Congress (the People of the United States) should be involved in the decision making process to determine whether or not The People of the United States should commit to bomb the sovereign nation of Syria as ‘punishment’ for the use of sarin gas on its own people.

There are two over arching issues, however. One is whether or not Syria is legally subject to the Executive Branch of the United States Government? No reasonable person would make the argument that it is because Syria is not subject to the Executive Branch of the United States Government and has not posed a threat to U.S. national security.  For that reason alone President Barak Obama does not have the legal nor moral authority to bomb Syria.

The second issue is whether or not the Government of Syria knowingly, purposely, recklessly, or negligently used sarin gas to kill its citizens?  Now we must ask: what evidence has been proffered by the President to U.S. citizens?

The Obama administration has used straw man arguments and has proffered at most circumstantial evidence that the Syrian Government used sarin gas on its people.  It has proffered satellite data of phone calls near the scene of sarin gas use and satellite data of the use of artillery near the scene of sarin gas use.  And notice, the use of that presumed evidence is peppered by Secretary of State John Kerry with emotive terminology to manipulate the American People emotionally.

However, satellite data on phone calls and artillery use in the area where the gas was used can be simulated by computer programs as it is done in war games for training purposes. Therefore, such evidence cannot be rationally authenticated and thus cannot be used to justify the bombing of a sovereign nation.

If one accepts as credible United Nations scientists that sarin gas was used and that people actually died then the question now is: who used the sarin gas?  The fact is that there is no direct evidence which conclusively proves who used the sarin gas.

If we further assume that Bashar Assad and the U.S., Israeli, and Saudi rebel leaders are rational persons then what a rational Congress ought to ask is: who would benefit by the use of sarin gas on Syrian people?  Certainly, Bashar Assad would not benefit.  He would lose both Russian and Chinese support as well as his government.  Therefore, he didn’t use the sarin gas. That leaves the rebels.

The rebels would gain from the use of sarin gas because it would enlist the overt might of the U.S. military to destroy the Syrian government. The rebels would then get Syria to ghettoize.  The Israelis would gain because Israel would then be able to undermine Hezbullah in Lebanon and that would allow Israel to take Lebanon’s southern territories to ghettoize, again.  The Saudis would gain because they would feel that greater military pressure would be put on Iran, a nation they want to ghettoize.  And of course, U.S. corporations would gain because they could get contracts to exploit resources and rebuild Syria, again.  Therefore, the rebels and their supporters used the sarin gas.

President Obama drew a Red Line.  Now he should be hoping that Congress gives him a way to back down and to save face by saying no to him because if he bombs Syria there will be terrible repercussions as far away as the Korean peninsula.  Korea is China’s trump card.  Expect South Korea to be under extreme military pressure from North Korea if Syria is bombed.  Russia will up support for Syria,too. President Obama is in a mess.  He should step out of it and clean his shoes.

 

 

 

 



[1] Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11

[2] Article 2, section 2; and Article 2, section 2, clause 1; Stat. 838 (1941); 56 Stat 176 (1942), et al