Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

SHADOWS OF NUREMBERG by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.

Expand Messages
  • Frog Farmer
    Dear List Members, The dissolution of the empire sure is exciting, isn t it?! I had to show you this article where once again Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr. took the
    Message 1 of 3 , Jan 30, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear List Members,

      The dissolution of the empire sure is exciting, isn't it?! I had to
      show you this article where once again Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr. took the
      words right out of my mouth. Notice how the concept of
      "disqualification" based upon the oath of office is primary to his way
      of thinking. You probably know that I consider it a man's primary right
      and duty to perform the disqualification of unqualified impersonating
      criminals who seek to impose their will upon my free and independent
      spirit! The world may soon hold America to the same standards it has
      been imposing for decades. This relates to court because, like with the
      WWII Nazis, both not-yet-dead victims and tyrannical perps will most
      likely have their destinies determined in a courtroom under law.

      Someone mentioned to me that John McCain is not eligible to be
      president because of his birth status, being born in Panama when it was
      not then a U.S. possession. I didn't research it yet so I have no idea
      if it is true or not, but other evidence that abounds shows that the
      minions are in panic and few are actually performing their designated
      functions in a normal manner, but are all functioning in panic mode,
      afraid to speak or act or think or do anything but try not to rock the
      boat and keep those anticipated paychecks coming for as long as possible
      before the Big Collapse makes the evening news.

      Here's some meat for consideration by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr.:

      [NB: */"If the Nuremberg laws were applied today
      <http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/imt.htm>, then every Post-War
      American president would have to be hanged.
      <http://cnn.com/US/9611/12/holocaust/index.html>/" -- Noam Chomsky*]

      ----
      While reading a report in the Washington Post (Sunday, 6 January 2008,
      p. A10) on Republican Presidential candidates who were campaigning in
      New Hampshire, I came upon an arresting paragraph that referred to an
      "exchange [that] capped a six-way argument sparked by host Charlie
      Gibson, who asked whether the candidates support [President George W.]
      Bush's policy of preemptive war. The leading candidates"---other than
      Representative Ron Paul, of course---"all embraced the policy." This
      enthusiastic near-unanimity led me to ponder the subject in a way that
      the Washington Post's reporter (as well as Charlie Gibson) apparently
      did not.
      http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin74.htm

      The terms "preemptive strike" and "preemptive war" are euphemisms. The
      unvarnished nouns are "attack" and "aggression." Aggression is a "war
      crime" under the contemporary /Law of Nations/. That was the fundamental
      principle applied in the Nuremberg Trials: namely, that the Nazi leaders
      had conspired to, and did, seize control of and misuse the government
      and armed forces of Germany for the purpose of waging unlawful
      wars---wars of aggression---against Germany's neighbors. Indeed, the
      extensive documentary history of the Nazis' crimes published by the
      United States Government Printing Office in the late 1940s was entitled
      simply, and accurately, /Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression/. Nazi
      aggression did not commence only with actual hostilities, either. The
      very first document that evidenced the Nazis' aggression against Russia
      was the plan---repeat, /plan/---entitled /Aufbau Ost/ for movement of
      the German /Heer/ and /Luftwaffe/ into portions of occupied Poland,
      merely preparatory to invasion.

      A common complaint is that the Nuremberg Trials were examples of ex post
      facto law, that they were hypocritical (inasmuch as one of the brace of
      original aggressors in World War II, Stalin's Russia, sat in judgment of
      her erstwhile ally, Hitler's Germany), that the prosecutorial and
      juridical procedures employed did not comport with due process, and so
      on. Even if all of these criticisms are to some degree just (and surely
      at least a few of them are), nonetheless: (i) however novel it may have
      been in the 1940s, the Nuremberg principle that aggression is a "war
      crime" is not novel today, perforce of the results of the Nuremberg
      Trials themselves; and (ii) having been applied by the United States in
      those trials, to the point of hanging various defendants on the strength
      of such charges, the principle remains applicable in equity to wayward
      public officials in the United States today.

      The concept that a war of aggression is a "war crime" was not something
      first introduced into the Law of Nations at Nuremberg in the late 1940s,
      either. Long before Nuremberg, it was widely accepted that launching a
      war was unjustifiable: (i) in the absence of an actual attack on, or an
      imminent danger thereof to, the nation engaging in hostilities; (ii)
      simply to weaken another country militarily, or to prevent her from
      becoming a possible threat in the future; or (iii) to impose on another
      country a form of government that was supposedly more benign or
      progressive than the one she happened to have. See, e.g., Hugo Grotius,
      /The Law of War and Peace/ (1646), Book II, Chapter I, �� IV, V, XVII;
      Chapter XXII, �� V, XXII.

      Moreover, even if the concept that a war of aggression is a "war crime"
      had never been part of the Law of Nations, it has always been part of
      the supreme law of the United States: For "the genius and character of
      our institutions are peaceful, and the power to declare war was not
      conferred upon Congress for the purposes of aggression and
      aggrandizement." /Fleming v. Page/, 50 U.S. (9 Howard) 603, 614 (1850).
      And "[t]he Constitution * * * invests the President, as Commander in
      Chief, with the power to wage war which Congress has declared." /Ex
      parte Quirin/, 317 U.S. 1, 26 (1942). So, if Congress cannot
      constitutionally declare a war of aggression, the President cannot wage
      one---let alone wage such a war without any Congressional declaration at
      all. And if Congress does purport to declare (or otherwise license) a
      war of aggression, and the President does purport to wage one, everyone
      involved is guilty of a violation of his "Oath or Affirmation, to
      support the Constitution." Article VI, cl. 2. Therefore, all of their
      actions are illegal---and if perpetrated other than under the proven
      influence of insanity or other equivalent mental disease or defect, are
      "war crimes."

      What, then, had I and thousands of others read in the /Washington Post/?

      That all but one of the leading Republican candidates for President of
      the United States possibly are assuring the country that they will
      behave as "war criminals" if elected President, by continuing and even
      extending the Bush regime's policy of "preemptive war"! I say
      "possibly," because it may be that these hucksters---or the masterminds
      of political propaganda and agitation who turn the keys in the back of
      their heads to wind up their mouths---can produce some convoluted theory
      as to why the Bush's regime's version of "preemptive war" against
      "Islamo-fascism" throughout the whole world squares with the
      Constitution. If so, they should be afforded the opportunity in the
      court of public opinion, if not some other court, to present that
      exculpatory argument to their fellow Americans.

      This explanation not only is mandatory, but also may be more important
      right now than the candidates' being pressed to detail their positions
      on the two crucial issues I have emphasized in other commentaries:
      namely, (i) the on-going self-destruction of this country's monetary and
      banking systems, and (ii) the creation of a national police state under
      color of providing for "homeland security." For any further "preemptive
      wars" will strain America's already overextended public and private
      financial structures beyond the point of collapse, which will provide an
      excuse for the Dark Forces in the Disgrace of Columbia to complete and
      attempt to put into full operation a national police state.

      So, Mr. and Mrs. America, see---in just two sentences in the /Washington
      Post/---how far your country has sunk into the murky depths of History's
      septic tank, when all the leading Republican Presidential "candidates
      [other than Ron Paul] support Bush's policy of preemptive war," and
      apparently no one in the big media considers this "support," in and of
      itself, a complete and absolute disqualification for nomination, let
      alone election---or even asks what such "support" legally entails, so
      that the question of disqualification can be put before the general
      public. Now, precisely what do you intend to do about it.

      I, for one, should not wish to conclude that evidence sufficient to
      condemn Nazis at Nuremberg has been transmogrified into a qualification
      for electing Republicans (or anyone else) to high office in Washington.
      I, for one, should hope that this country has not forgotten the most
      sanguinary lesson the history of the Twentieth Century teaches. I, for
      one, should hope that some plausible, innocent explanation of what these
      Republican candidates say they "support" is available. I, for one,
      should hope that, if such an explanation is not forthcoming from them,
      then all of the Democratic aspirants for nomination will roundly
      repudiate "preemptive wars" in no uncertain terms. And I, for one,
      should hope that, if neither the Republican nor the Democratic "front
      runners" renounce wars of aggression as instruments of American foreign
      policy---and even if they do---then Representative Ron Paul will be
      elected President. But perhaps I am only one, or only one of a few. Too
      few. If so, Heaven help America from the darkness closing in upon
      her---because nothing else can.

      ------------------------------------------------------------------------

      /Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard
      College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences),
      and J.D. (Harvard Law School). /

      /For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on
      constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he
      successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark
      decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v.

      Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established
      constitutional and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor
      unions, in both the private and the public sectors, may apply fees
      extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their employment. /

      /He has written numerous monographs and articles in scholarly journals,
      and lectured throughout the county. His most recent work on money and
      banking is the two-volume Pieces of Eight <http://www.piecesofeight.us>:

      The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution
      (2002), the most comprehensive study in existence of American monetary
      law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective.
      www.piecesofeight.us <http://www.piecesofeight.us> /

      /He is also the co-author (under a nom de plume) of the political novel
      CRA$HMAKER <http://www.crashmaker.com>: A Federal Affaire (2000), a
      not-so-fictional story of an engineered crash of the Federal Reserve
      System, and the political upheaval it causes. www.crashmaker.com
      <http://www.crashmaker.com>/

      /His latest book is: "How To Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary
      <http://www.newswithviews.com/HNB/Hot_New_Books20.htm>"// ... and
      Constitutional "Homeland Security,
      <http://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Homeland-Security-Americans-Revita
      lize/dp/0967175925/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/002-8740607-9708809?ie=UTF8&s=books&q
      id=1177038725&sr=1-2>"
      Volume One, The Nation in Arms.../

      /He can be reached at:
      13877 Napa Drive
      Manassas, Virginia 20112. /

      ----------------

      Well, what do you think of THAT!? I've always liked Edwin Vieira, Jr.
      for his ability to clearly explain the monetary situation. For those in
      the "Freedom Movement" both he and Ron Paul have been key players for
      decades.

      Regards,

      FF
    • BOB GREGORY
      McCain was born to a naval officer and his wife serving abroad. His birth was doubtless registered with the U.S. consulate. He would have been issued a
      Message 2 of 3 , Jan 30, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        McCain was born to a naval officer and his wife serving abroad.  His birth was doubtless registered with the U.S. consulate.  He would have been issued a certification of birth abroad.  He is considered to be the same as having been born in the United States.  I have a son who was born in France under the same circumstances.

        That having been said, I still would not consider voting for him, not because of where he was born but because of how he has conducted his life.  McCain and I were both commissioned in the Navy in 1958.  He is a party animal son of privilege (grandfather and father both four-star admirals)  who boozed his way through the Naval Academy (graduating 5th from the bottom), flight school and practically everywhere.  He womanized with exotic dancers and others, lost several planes, not counting the one shot down in Vietnam and dumped his wife who walked with a limp after an auto accident, divorcing her on April 2, 1980 and marrying his present wife on May 17, 1980 (Hey, why not, she's 17 years younger and very rich.).  He began his political life after getting a mercy (and family related)  promotion to Captain and being detailed to Navy congressional liaison duty.  There he boozed and partied with key congressmen and senators and liked what he saw.  He is pretty much the definition of a RINO (Republican in name only).


        Frog Farmer wrote:
            Someone mentioned to me that John McCain is not eligible to be
        president because of his birth status, being born in Panama when it was
        not then a U.S. possession.  I didn't research it yet so I have no idea
        if it is true or not,


      • Mike Beiser
        Firstly, by parentage; Secondly, by place of birth; thirdly, by military service in the armed forces of a nation - state; Fourthly, by naturalization in a
        Message 3 of 3 , Feb 5 8:42 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Firstly, by parentage;
          Secondly, by place of birth;
          thirdly, by military service in the armed forces of a nation - state;
          Fourthly, by naturalization in a political subdivision;

          Citizenship is membership in a political community (originally a city
          or town but now usually a country) and carries with it rights to
          political participation; a person having such membership is a
          citizen. It is largely coterminous with nationality,[citation needed]
          although it is possible to have a nationality without being a citizen
          (i.e., be legally subject to a state and entitled to its protection
          without having rights of political participation in it); it is also
          possible to have political rights without being a national of a
          state. In most nations, a non-citizen is a non-national and called
          either a foreigner or an alien. In the United States, because there
          is state citizenship, foreign is the legal term for someone not a
          citizen of the state, and alien is reserved for someone not a citizen
          of the United States. Thus New York insurance companies are foreign
          in New Jersey, while a Dutch insurer is alien.

          Citizenship, which is explained above, is the political rights of an
          individual within a society. Thus, you can have a citizenship from
          one country and be a national of another country. One example might
          be as follows: A Cuban-American might be considered a national of
          Cuba due to his being born there, but he could also become an
          American citizen through naturalization. Nationality most often
          derives from place of birth (i.e. jus soli) and, in some cases,
          ethnicity (i.e. jus sanguinis). Citizenship derives from a legal
          relationship with a state. Citizenship can be lost, as in
          denaturalization, and gained, as in naturalization.
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.