• Monthly
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $other
  • use PayPal

SPRING FUNDRAISER

Is it time for our Spring fundraiser already? If you enjoy what we offer, and have the means, please consider donating. The sooner we reach our modest goal, the faster we can get back to business as (un)usual. Please, stay safe and we’ll see you down the road.
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

If John Bolton Is Right, Pearl Harbor Was Perfectly Legal

Photo by Alan Light | CC BY 2.0

John Bolton, President Trump’s new (and improved) National Security Advisor argues a nuclear first strike against N. Korea is “legal.”

I am just a country lawyer, but I read the Nuremberg Judgments to condemn aggressive war.  Hitler was allegedly guilty of aggressive war when he launched first strikes against other countries.  The USA hanged some of his followers for following Hitler’s orders to do so.  In fact, the USA hanged some of his followers for planning and preparing for those aggressive wars before they started, arguing the law must condemn and punish those who planned for such criminal wars in times of peace, or else the planning and preparation would make the temptation irresistible.

Pearl Harbor, you may recall, was a criminal first strike aggressive war.  The USA hung some of those accountable following the Tokyo war crimes trials.  Aggressive war, a/k/a “first strikes” are criminal in all cases under the law of humanity.  Claiming a first strike is defensive because the guy on the other side is preparing to strike first seems a weak argument for an exception.  It sounds like an argument Hitler would make.  Certainly, the Japanese believed they had to attack Pearl Harbor because US actions threatened to cut off the Japanese oil supply “necessary” for their military expansion they were undertaking in Asia.

The USA has thousands of nukes on hair trigger.  Does this mean other countries are legally entitled to strike the USA because the USA is threatening to strike them?  (The USA nuke war plans include first strike planning against almost every other nation on earth.)  Are those countries more justified because they can claim:  “We could not trust the USA would not strike, because 1) it is the only country that has used nukes and thus is known to do so; 2) the USA has repeatedly failed to live up to Treaties it has ratified requiring it to nuclear disarm, and 3) the USA refuses to reject “nuclear first strike,” but rather keeps “all options on the table”?   Bolton’s argument can be used to contend that the USA has a history of using and threatening to use nuclear weapons and a known disregard of the law and morality that makes it a suspect rogue nation which other nations ought to be entitled to strike first in a “preventive war.”

Aggressive war is the ultimate war crime, also a crime against peace and crime against humanity.  So stated the Chief US Prosecutor at Nuremberg.  Clearly nuclear first strike ups that ante because the strike itself will result in no justifiable “military gain.”  The territory attacked will not be occupyable nor “useable” by the attacker due to poisonous contamination.  The surrounding countries will suffer massive casualties and could be drawn into the conflagration. The only Mission Accomplished will be mass death of noncombatants and the atrocity will be a repudiation of law itself.  The bestial nature of the weapons themselves negates any claim of legitimacy if used.  If Hitler’s aggressive wars were crimes, if Pearl Harbor was a crime, nuclear first strikes are exponentially more odious.

Robert J. Oppenheimer fatuously quoted the Gita on “successful” testing of the first nuke:  “I am become death.”  The purpose of law is the protection of life–that is the law’s most noble and ancient foundation.  By becoming death, one negates law.   John Bolton has a long history of advocating death.  Now he advocates the death of law itself.  The American people are now called upon to judge.  Do we become Death?  Or shall we repudiate death as national policy?  The USA has the power.  Does it have the right?  How we answer that question as a people may well determine whether humanity itself survives.

A nation can be a nation of law, or it can be a nation of death.  It cannot be both.  The choice is now stark and clear.  It is up to the people of the USA.  Either the people loudly proclaim John Bolton does not speak for me, or the people ratify his view and complete the long, slow slide into the abyss.    Count my vote as follows:  no day that will live in infamy shall be committed in my name nor by my beloved country.  John Bolton speaks not for me.

More articles by:

Kary Love is a Michigan attorney.

Weekend Edition
May 29, 2020
Friday - Sunday
Tim Wise
Protest, Uprisings, and Race War
Nick Pemberton
White Supremacy is the Virus; Police are the Vector
T.J. Coles
What’s NATO Up to These Days? Provoking Russia, Draining Healthcare Budgets and Protecting Its Own from COVID
Benjamin Dangl
Bibles at the Barricades: How the Right Seized Power in Bolivia
Kevin Alexander Gray - Jeffrey St. Clair - JoAnn Wypijewski
There is No Peace: an Incitement to Justice
Jeffrey St. Clair
A Few Good Sadists
Jeff Mackler
The Plague of Racist Cop Murders: Ahmaud Arbery, George Floyd and the COVID-19 Pandemic
Joshua Frank
In Search of a Lost Socialism
Charles Pierson
Who are the “Wrong Hands” in Yemen?
Andrew Levine
Trump Is Unbeatable in the Race to the Bottom and So Is the GOP
David Schultz
Trump isn’t the Pope and This Ain’t the Middle Ages
Ramzy Baroud
Political Ambiguity or a Doomsday Weapon: Why Abbas Abandoned Oslo
Pam Martens - Russ Martens
A Growing Wave of Bankruptcies Threatens U.S. Recovery
Joseph Natoli
Conditions Close at Hand
N.D. Jayaprakash
No Lessons Learned From Bhopal: the Toxic Chemical Leak at LG Polymers India 
Ron Jacobs
The Odyssey of Elias Demetracopoulos
J.P. Linstroth
Arundhati Roy on Indian Migrant-Worker Oppression and India’s Fateful COVID Crisis
Melvin Goodman
Goodness Gracious, David Ignatius!!
Roger Harris
Blaming the COVID-19 Pandemic on Too Many Humans:  a Critique of Overpopulation Ideology
Sonali Kolhatkar
For America’s Wealthiest, the Pandemic is a Time to Profit
Prabir Purkayastha
U.S. Declares a Vaccine War on the World
David Rosen
Coronavirus and the Telecom Crisis
Paul Buhle
Why Does W.E.B. Du Bois Matter Today?
Mike Bader
The Only Way to Save Grizzlies: Connect Their Habitats
Dave Lindorff
Pandemic Crisis and Recession Can Spark a Fight for Real Change in the US
Nyla Ali Khan
The Sociopolitical and Historical Context That Shaped Kashmiri Women Like My Grandmother in the 1940s
Louis Proyect
Does Neo-Feudalism Define Our Current Epoch?
Ralph Nader
S. David Freeman: Seven Decades of Participating in Power for All of Us
Norman Solomon
Amy Klobuchar, Minneapolis Police and Her VP Quest
Maria Paez Victor
Venezuela in the 2020 Pandemic
Ron Mitchell
Defending Our Public Lands: One Man’s Legacy
Nomi Prins 
The Great Depression, Coronavirus Style: Crashes, Then and Now
Richard C. Gross
About That City on A Hill
Kathleen Wallace
An Oath for Hypocrites
Eve Ottenberg
Common Preservation or Extinction?
Graham Peebles
Air Pollution Mental Illness and Covid-19
ADRIAN KUZMINSKI
Unearned Income for All
Evan Jones
The Machine Stops
Nicky Reid
Proudhon v. Facebook: A Mutualist Solution to Cyber Tyranny
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
What is a “Native” Plant in a Changing World?
Shailly Gupta Barnes
Why are Our Leaders Still Putting Their Faith in the Rich?
John Kendall Hawkins
In Search of the Chosŏn People of Lost Korea
Jill Richardson
Tens of Millions of Are Out of Work, Why on Earth is Trump Trying to Cut Food Aid?
Susan Block
Incel Terrorism
David Yearsley
Plague Music
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail