International News
See other International News Articles
Title: Putin's Letter To The American People
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/o ... from-russia-on-syria.html?_r=0
Published: Sep 11, 2013
Author: Vladamir V. Putin
Post Date: 2013-09-11 22:24:46 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 25055
Comments: 42
MOSCOW — RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.
Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.
The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.
No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.
The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.
Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.
Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.
From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.
No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.
It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”
But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.
No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.
The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.
We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.
A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.
I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.
If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.
My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.
Vladimir V. Putin is the president of Russia.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 23.
#1. To: All (#0)
I agree with much of what he says here. I don't agree that we need UN approval to declare war. Our congress does that.
The UN Charter does not say that. A nation can declare war, or make war if it is attacked, with no declaration and with no permission needed from the UN to act in self-defence. Using force against a member state that has not attacked the U.S. is an act of aggression. Being the aggressor, throwing the first punch, violates international law. UN Charter 2-4: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the 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." UN Charter 51: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security." G.A. Res. 3314, U.N. GAOR, 29th Sess., Supp. No. 31, at 142, U.N. Doc. A/9631 (1974) Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.... Article 2 The first use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter, conclude that a determination that an act of aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the acts concerned or their consequences are not of sufficient gravity. Article 3 Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, subject to and in accordance with the provision of article 2, qualify as an act of aggression: (a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof; (b) Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State; (c) The blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State; (d) An attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State; (e) The use of armed forces of one State which are within the territory of another State with the agreement of the receiving State, in contravention of the conditions provided for in the agreement or any extension of their presence in such territory beyond the termination of the agreement; (f) The action of a State in allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State; (g) The sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to the acts listed above, or its substantial involvement therein. Article 4 The acts enumerated above are not exhaustive and the Security Council may determine that other acts constitute aggression under the provisions of the Charter. Article 5 1. No consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression. 2. A war of aggression is a crime against international peace. Aggression gives rise to international responsibility. 3. No territorial acquisition or special advantage resulting from aggression is or shall be recognized as lawful.
Our constitution doesn't recognize international law. We can have treaties with individual nations. But it doesn't have the authority under the "limited" powers that you mentioned elsewhere to join an organization that usurps the states rights. The constitution clearly gives the congress the right to declare war. Even if we are the aggressors and wrong. The UN wasn't even presented as a treaty.
Actually, it does by specific reference at Article I, Section 8, Clause 10: "To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations." Black's Law Dictionary, 6 Ed. defines Law of Nation with "See International Law." Law of Nations is the archaic term and is interchangeable with the modern term. International Law. Yes. The does not usurp our authority. Accepting UN definitions is voluntary. If we wish to leave the UN, nothing is stopping us. The president has taken the nation to war or, to use the modern effective term, armed conflict, with and without a declaration of war or congressional or UN consent. In cases where we are the aggressor, the UN can and has passed a resolution condemn the United States for its action as the aggressor nation. A specific example would be the invasion of Grenada. The treaty to establish the UN was ratified by the Senate 89-2 and signed by President Truman. http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ha/cun/cun.html http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40299.html By Andrew Glass | 7/28/10 4:37 AM EDT On this day in 1945, as World War II drew to a close, the Senate ratified the United Nations Charter by 89-2. Its approval signaled a sea change in U.S. involvement in world affairs. In 1919, following World War I, President Woodrow Wilson had sought Senate approval of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the charter that Wilson envisioned and largely fashioned. However, to Wilson’s disappointment, growing isolationism and partisan politics killed chances of U.S. participation in the league. President Harry S. Truman voiced delight with the Senate’s U.N. vote. “The action of the Senate,” Truman said, “substantially advances the cause of world peace.” Joseph Grew, acting secretary of state, also lauded the Senate’s action, noting that “millions of men, women and children have died because nations took to the naked sword instead of the conference table to settle their differences.” Fifty of the original 51 U.N. member nations had signed the treaty at the San Francisco War Memorial and Performing Arts Center on June 26. Poland, the remaining original member, was not represented, a harbinger of the Cold War. (The Poles signed later.) The treaty came into force on Oct. 24, 1945, after being ratified by the then five permanent members of the Security Council: Britain, the Republic of China, France, the Soviet Union and the United States.
Over the past decade and a half, I've heard the stonewalling and excuses about changes to the amendment made by states: punctuation and actual word changes not mattering. Wrong. More than a decade ago, Constitutional attorney, Larry Becraft, who has more than 35 years experience fighting in federal courts and giving the IRS some of it's worst bloody noses, filed a lawsuit in the State of Oklahoma over the non ratification of the 16th Amendment; known as the federal income tax amendment. He writes: The legal necessity for concurrence in legislative acts. “Philander Knox was Secretary of State back in 1913 and was by law the public official to whom the States which allegedly ratified this amendment were to send their notices of ratification. When enough of these documents were received by Knox, he commenced a review of them and drafted a report dated February 15, 1913. Therein, Knox noted that "under the provisions of the Constitution a legislature is not authorized to alter in any way the amendment proposed by Congress, the function of the legislature consisting merely in the right to approve or disapprove the proposed amendment." But having said this, Knox went on in the same report and noted all the various changes that the states had made to the amendment. “This proposition that state legislatures cannot alter or change a proposed constitutional amendment is derived from an establish legal principle which requires that legislative bodies, when considering any given legislative act, must agree to the exact same wording and punctuation of that proposed law. This legislative principle was discussed in a booklet titled How Our Laws Are Made, Document Number 97-120, 97th Congress, First Session, written by Edward F. Willett, Jr., Law Revision Counsel for the U.S. House of Representatives: "Each amendment must be inserted in precisely the proper place in the bill, with the spelling and punctuation exactly the same as it was adopted by the House. Obviously, it is extremely important that the Senate receive a copy of the bill in the precise form in which it passed the House. The preparation of such a copy is the function of the enrolling clerk. "When the bill has been agreed to in identical form by both bodies– either without amendment by the Senate, or by House concurrence in the Senate amendments, or by agreement in both houses to the conference report– a copy of the bill is enrolled for presentation to the President. "The preparation of the enrolled bill is a painstaking and important task since it must reflect precisely the effect of all amendments, either by way of deletion, substitution, or addition, agreed to by both bodies. The enrolling clerk.... must prepare meticulously the final form of the bill, as it was agreed to by both Houses, for presentation to the President.... each (amendment) must be set out in the enrollment exactly as agreed to, and all punctuation must be in accord with the action taken." Of course, our lawsuit was kicked to the curb by the court and we didn't have enough money (The Wallace Institute) to take it to a higher court. I doubt it would have succeeded because most judges are simply gutless without an ounce of integrity. I want you to go look at this case: Sullivan vs. U.S., et al. A 2003 case which clearly demonstrates federal judges are too cowardly to stand up for the U.S. Constitution and should be thrown off the bench by Congress. While that case dealt with war and the Monroe Doctrine, read the actual words of Judge James C. Cox, beginning on page 23: “..you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment (16th)”. And, "I think I'm correct in saying that actually the ratification never occurred." According to that judge, it's okay fraud sends Americans to prison. That federal judge spontaneously brought up the Sixteenth Amendment (federal income tax) and clearly stated what Bill Benson proved in his research and went to prison for: it was not properly ratified. How many hundreds, if not thousands are rotting in federal prisons because of a law that does not exist? One too many while the American people dutifully lay bare their personal lives to the IRS in the hope they avoid an audit. As for the Seventeenth, this needs to be considered: Can a constitutional amendment be constitutional if it amends the Constitution by a back door method? Full text of "Constitution Jefferson's Manual And Rules Of the House Of Representatives Of The United States Eighty Seventh Congress" "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose, Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." For those states who voted not to ratify or those who were out of session at the time and didn't vote – the Seventeenth Amendment clearly does as they did not give their consent to be deprived equal suffrage in the Senate. I don't think people can appreciate the battle that went on during the first Contential Congress until they read Max Ferrand's historical work, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787. It's free on the Internet, but I have the three volume soft copy set (1800 pages). It is a remarkable walk through history. The Seventeenth Amendment clearly violates Article V for the following states who did not ratify the Seventeenth Amendment: Utah (explicitly rejected amendment); Alabama; Florida; Georgia (refused to vote on it); Kentucky; Maryland; Mississippi; Rhode Island; South Carolina; Virginia. I went to the National Archives in Washington, DC and retrieved the proof that amendment was not ratified. Dozens of states made changes to the text in one form or another. All documents can be viewed and printed here. Long ago I focused on this letter given to me in the mid-1990s by an individual with impeccable credentials. As you can see, it is a letter from the the archivist at the Secretary of State's office stating: "There was no debate or voting record listed in the California State Senate or Assembly Journals". On what? The ratification of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments. It is alleged California voted to ratify the Seventeenth Amendment on January 28, 1913. Next, please look at this journal page I personally retrieved from the California State Archives. 1913. See item 7 regarding the constitutional amendment to elect U.S. Senators: May 20, 1913: From Committee. Without Recommendation. How could it go from committee without recommendation on May 20th if it was allegedly voted on five months earlier? It wasn't. Over the years, the folks at the California State Archives have been so kind and helpful in my research. This past summer I drove 100 miles to Angelo State U, the closest repository of old records and went through their microfilm. That promoted me to again contact California to request court certified copies of the journal records for 1913. Guess what? They're all on the Internet now and what do those official records from California show for January 28, 1913? There was no vote that day or any other for the Seventeenth Amendment. I had my web master down load everything and also put it on a CD, which I sent to the state reps and senators listed below. I did it to protect the truth, i.e., a journal page which looks authentic suddenly appears with the proper vote. I knew there was no vote back in 2000 because I went to the California State Archives (15 minutes from my home then) and asked for a search. I went back the next day and was informed by the head archivist no such vote was found. The Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (as well as the Sixteenth) was clearly not ratified by enough states. There is also another problem. I tried to obtain an investigation from the State of Georgia, but they don't do mail requests anymore because of budget cuts. I was going to ask Rep. Bobby Franklin to help me, but God, rest his soul, that fine man died unexpectedly on July 26, 2011, from heart disease; I was so shocked. What did I want Bobby to help me with? The State of George did not vote on that amendment. Their governor at the time commissioned an investigation: Congress did not properly adopt the amendment before it was even sent to the states. I printed out everything I could find at Angelo U of the bickering between congress critters at the time and the amendments, but I wish I had a copy of that investigation. State reps and senators can probably get a copy because they are elected officials. The bottom line is this: We are being destroyed from within. The top issues in this country crushing us are Agenda 21, the unconstitutional "Federal" Reserve and the federal income tax. Our major job sectors gutted because of vile treaties like NAFTA pushed through by then Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich. Obamacare and endless new regulations coming out of alphabet soup agencies that are unconstitutional, killing the states and employers. The states have no representation in Congress; they are little more than doormats. The states must stand up and fight back as those representatives were going to in New Hampshire with H.R. 1126 or allow the federal machine to crush them and all of us. That isn't going to happen until one state takes the first step in challenging the non ratification of that amendment. It may be okay with the federal judge in the Sullivan case that people are rotting in prison for an amendment that wasn't ratified, but it's not okay with me and I hope not okay with you. And, please, I'm sick to death of the mealy mouthed excuses that it can't be done or chaos would ensue or the legislatures would appoint the same flavor of corrupt individuals that keep getting elected by the mobs. I would say Apollo 13 qualified as a situation where chaos might have taken over, but it didn't. Strong minds, professionalism and faith brought those astronauts home. We are a different nation now than in 1913. We have the power, literally, of the people at the state level to make damn sure those appointed senators represent the rights and interests of the state which benefit all of us or we vote out the state representatives and senators who appointed them. If we truly are to be a nation of self governance, then we have to take control. Those individuals in the state houses work for us, not the other way around. This will only happen when a few state legislatures go for the cure. Do what Rep. Joshua Davenport did - get a bill introduced THIS session. This is an emergency, so maybe there is some way it can be done in your state. Those counterfeit U.S. Senators are killing jobs, making more and more regulations hurting the rights of your citizens, not to mention our God-given rights. Yes, it IS an emergency as we slide further into the continuing nightmare. Okay, forget New York, California and states like mine (Texas) who are out of session until Jan. 2013. It would be close to impossible to get a special session called for something so important as fraud and the right of the state to expose it. Every state has its own rules about introducing bills, but if you want something bad enough, it can get done. Over the years I have been asked to endorse senate candidates; I have refused. I have not voted for a senate candidate since 1996. I will NOT be party to the continuing fraud. No individual has the right to run for the U.S. Senate. I know "senators" like Rand Paul are very popular and if this fraud were exposed, their state legislature can still appoint him to carry on. This is a mess (with both amendments), but by golly, it can be dealt with one step at a time. Or, do we continue to live with lies, fraud and destruction? No more resolutions asking Congress to pretty please, repeal the Seventeenth Amendment. That will never happen and it's not even the legal way to address this. While I would like to have seen a few state legislators challenge ballot access, too many state judges are cowards just like federal judges. Here are the individuals I sent the material to besides the representatives in New Hampshire: Rep. Phil Hart [Idaho], Rep. Pete Nielsen {Idaho], Rep. Bryan Hughes [Texas}, Senator David Williams {Kentucky], Senator Howard Stephenson [Utah], Rep. Leo Berman [Texas], Rep. Matthew Shea {Washington State] Rep. Lois Kolkhorst [Texas] and Rep. Jim Landtroop [Texas]. While I did not send him the materials, if you live in Arizona (think the slimy, corrupt John McCain), I would contact Sen. Ron Gould. He knows all about this fraud. All are fine individuals. If we don't try, we will surely continue down the abyss. This is NOT a political party issue. It's about fraud and the real intent of the framers of the U.S. Constitution. It's about the right of the states in this Union to have representation in the U.S. Congress.
I want you to go look at this case: Sullivan vs. U.S., et al. A 2003 case which clearly demonstrates federal judges are too cowardly to stand up for the U.S. Constitution and should be thrown off the bench by Congress. While that case dealt with war and the Monroe Doctrine, read the actual words of Judge James C. Cox, beginning on page 23: “..you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment (16th)”. And, "I think I'm correct in saying that actually the ratification never occurred."
#24. To: nolu chan (#23)
Page 23 from above my truth seeking friend.
Actually, standing is a constitutional requirement to bring a case in Federal court. Absent party standing, the Court has no jurisdiction to rule. The Sullivans were dismissed in North Carolina state court as well, also on standing. They didn't have any. The State court denied standing because the requested relief was beyond the authority of the court. In the argument in Federal court, at page 13, the Judge stated, "In other words, we have a question here of really whether or not there is any judicial remedy." The logic is spelled out after that. http://www.scribd.com/doc/168095918/Sullivan-v-North-Carolina-NC-Ct-App-COA04-600-17-May-2005-OPINION
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#3. To: A K A Stone (#1)
I don't agree that we need UN approval to declare war. Our congress does that.
Article 1
#4. To: nolu chan (#3)
Using force against a member state that has not attacked the U.S. is an act of aggression. Being the aggressor, throwing the first punch, violates international law.
#11. To: A K A Stone (#4)
Our constitution doesn't recognize international law.
We can have treaties with individual nations.
But it doesn't have the authority under the "limited" powers that you mentioned elsewhere to join an organization that usurps the states rights.
The constitution clearly gives the congress the right to declare war. Even if we are the aggressors and wrong.
The UN wasn't even presented as a treaty.
The United Nations Charter is the constituting instrument of the Organization, setting out the rights and obligations of Member States, and establishing the United Nations organs and procedures. An international treaty, the Charter codifies the major principles of international relations, from sovereign equality of States to the prohibition of the use of force in international relations.
Senate Ratifies United Nations Charter, July 28, 1945
#22. To: nolu chan (#11)
Advertisement
#23. To: All (#22)
Replies to Comment # 23.
#29. To: A K A Stone (#23)
I want you to go look at this case: Sullivan vs. U.S., et al. A 2003 case which clearly demonstrates federal judges are too cowardly to stand up for the U.S. Constitution and should be thrown off the bench by Congress.
Defendants moved to dismiss the action, contending that the claim was not justiciable and failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The trial court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss on 1 March 2004, finding plaintiffs lacked standing, that defendants were protected by sovereign immunity, and that the complaint presented political questions not justiciable by the court. Plaintiffs contend the trial court erred in dismissing their claims on these grounds. We disagree.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 23.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]