« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
cost in lives. Long before Pearl Harbor he warned the Nation that it would reach into the far corners of the world.
He knew the bitter task ahead. He was bound under his concept of "first things first” to awaken the Nation, to prepare it, to bring about unity of purpose and, while this was in slow process, to lend what strength he could to the first lines of resistance.
For these reasons, his search for the road to enforcing peace must wait. This was the dividing line, the moment between stanch hope and stark
fact. He thought and then he said: "Somebody should be held responsible for firing that first shot.”
It is not my right to attempt to express what was in President Roosevelt's mind at the time he uttered the words I have quoted. I can furnish only the background, as I knew it, and the words, verbatim.
However, I have every right to express my own conviction that this single sentence concisely described the very road he had been seeking to the objective of "freedom from fear."
The United Nations Charter adopted at San Francisco does not follow that road and I maintain that it is without law and effective enforcement to deter and control future crimes of aggression.
I invite you to travel that road with me and compare it with what is proposed in the United Nations Charter.
This is law.
The primary purpose of criminal law is to deter the criminal rather than to punish him.
Crime cannot be prevented because the intent of the criminal is obscure. The will to conquer is particularly adept in finding circuitous routes to its objective.
It is only by first having a clear statement of law that the potential criminal is deterred by fear, that the police have authority on which to act and that it is made difficult for criminals to enlist the aid of others.
Men easily twist their minds to serve an ideal, particulary if it pays. However, if that ideal is contrary to fixed and accepted law or if it becomes apparent that it will lead to a violation of such law, then enthusiasm wanesand organization disintegrates.
War cannot be fought without organization. The Charter does not furnish a clear statement of law defining the criminal. act of aggression and fixing responsibility therefor. In other words, individuals, including office holders, are bound under the laws of the state to serve the state. It follows that they can be compelled to serve the will to conquer if and when it is in control of the powers of the state.
Under the Charter, the Security Council will make decisions designed to maintain peace.
This is law after the fact. Law and punishment after the fact does not serve to deter crime nor does it serve to restore so much as one son lost in battle.
IV "Somebody should be held responsible for firing that first shot.”
Throughout the history of mankind, laws against crime have been enforced by holding the individual responsible for his criminal act.
The rights of people in a democracy are enforced by exalted justice applying. the concept of individual responsibility without regard to rank or position.
War requires organization and organization requires control and direction. If police authority is created under law clearly defining an act of aggression as a high crime against the people, it follows that such police authority should be in position to arrest those individuals who are at the control points of the act of aggression.
In short, deal with aggression from the top down so that the "will toconquer" is the first victim of enforcement. The Charter holds to the concept that the "state" is responsible for the crime of aggression. This is a delusion. A state is incapable of being “responsible' for crime. A state cannot be punished or made to fear punishment hence it.
cannot be deterred from committing a criminal act. A state cannot be arrested or stopped.
A state is like a corporation. A corporation cannot be deterred from committing a crime. However, its officers and directors are deterred from using the corpo ration or permitting its use for criminal purposes because they know that justice will pierce the corporate veil to put them, individually, in the penitentiary for the criminal act committed by the corporation. In other words, justice holds the directors and officers individually responsible because they were elected or appointed to guard the actions of the corporation.
Unfortunately, the Charter does not deal with the state as justice deals with corporations. The Charter does not hold individually responsible those who have been elected or appointed to the high honor of guarding the security and liberties of the people. In fact, under the Charter, those in office who directly control the power to wage war are not only free to serve the will to conquer but the will to conquer, if and when it attains top. position in government of a state, remains perfectly free to compel them to serve.
However, it is perfectly evident that the Charter has provided the Security Council with enforcement powers. It cannot apply them against a state which can suffer no pain. It does not apply them against specific individuals; indeed, it cannot because its weapons are of a military rather than police nature. What is the Security Council going to do? Why, it is going to resort to economic blockade and action by air, sea and land forces. Here are weapons and the use of weapons capable only of starving and bombing men, women and children, indiscriminately. In other words, the very people who are intended to be the beneficiaries of the objective, freedom from fear, are to be subjected to starvation or murder from the air in order to exercise leverage on the conscience of a state which is without conscience and whose leaders have given indications of willingness to join battle in a reversion to war.
Examine it from another angle: The people—who nowhere in the world are constantly in control of government—are given a choice which must, perforce, call for decision by the individual. Assuming that he has a free and informative press, he is confronted, on the one hand, by the remote possibility that the Security Council will stoop to mass murder of innocents and that he or members of his family may be among its victims. On the other hand, he faces the absolute certainty that he, individually, will be shot for treason or desertion if he does not obey his own government forthwith. He will obey his own government, of course, and will support it-he always has. Thus, the people will be ground, just as they are in war, between two vast machines, to one of which they are hopelessly chained by law while they can expect from the other, the Security Council, nothing but death and destruction during its probing in a blind and senseless search-for what? Nor is the toll of lives a one-sided affair. Read the casualty lists.
Good people do not need to know the law. It is the criminal who makes it his business to know the strength and weaknesses of law and enforcement. The basic weakness of the enforcing powers held by the Security Council is not that the Council will refrain from sadistic use of military force and thereby nullify its effectiveness. Nor does it lie in the fact, assuming that the Council does make use of its broad powers, that the entire people of any nation will resent, as they have throughout history, the punishment of innocents, particularly if such punishment is predicated on enforcing the discretionary judgment of the Council rather than accepted law.
The basic weakness of such enforcing powers lies in the probability established by history that another score of years will see the “will to conquer" arise, as safe behind the veil of state responsibility as it was behind the veil of state sovereignty, to lay its careful plans to regiment its people and to conquer the world, the Security Council included, with new and terrible weapons of misdirected science.
Then, even as in this war, men who think themselves free will once again become the indirect puppets of the "will to conquer," fighting the slaves of that will, man to man-yes, and machines against helpless women and children—with all the folly, futility, and wanton waste of war.
Any treaty which cannot be enforced is a scrap of paper, the mere pledge of price and convenience of signatories whose lives are short and whose honor may be shorter. It is like an escort ship without a rudder, a menace to the sovereign ships which unwisely rely on it for protection, What to do about it? The Charter lacks only in law and enforcement to maintain peace.
Law calls for a simple prohibition, a “Thou shalt not," which every person can understand, respect, and help to enforce. Aggression is a high crime against
mankind. As such, it calls for a high law, or a people's right. A people's right calls for exalted justice, which is justice empowered above those in control of government anywhere, to apply that people's right. Since justice does not exceed the letter of law which has been accepted, this is no incursion of state sovereignty.
Enforcement of a people's right calls for true police powers capable of arresting the individual who actually violates the people's right. Since we are dealing with states, both justice and the police authorities must have the power to pierce the veil of state sovereignty to hold individually responsible those who exercise the powers of the state to commit an act of aggression.
Thus, we need not concern ourselves with the actual or theoretical causes of war, whether they be individuals or cliques, people of the state as a whole or the economic royalists, poverty or greed, race or religion. They do not justify war nor will war eliminate them. We would make use of the Security Council and its military forces only as we in the United States on occasion make use of the National Guard, viz., to restore law and order under justice when and if the people are misled into obstructing the path of justice.
This would serve to cure certain faults in the Charter relating to the Security Council and its powers, as follows: The Council is given broad discretionary powers without provision the checks and balances or principles of justice consonant with democratic concepts. The Council members are tied to the leaders who appointed them, hence subject to power politics as were the delegates to the I.eague of Nations. The Council's unity and speed of action are contingent upon agreement among a few dominant states. Finally, but not least, the veto power of our representative is the only safeguard we will have against incursion of our form of government and liberties in the name of maintaining peace.
VI The people's right: “No person shall be compelled, caused, directed or knowingly permitted to participate in an act of aggression, nor shall any person voluntarily participate in an act of aggression."
Outline of application and enforcement: “For purposes of definition, the foregoing prohibition shall be known as “The people's right' and an 'Act of aggression' shall be the sending of military manpower or weapons from within the sovereign limits of one state to trespass upon the sovereign territory of another state without the express consent or request of the Security Council. "The citizens or subjects of all States
shall be construed as being individually bound and obligated
to comply with, protect and defend 'the people's right.'
shall include this obligation in their oaths of office.
"States which accept 'the people's right' shall not be subject to the enforcement powers of the Security Council except as hereinbelow provided.
“The International Court of Justice shall be charged with effectuating the people's right' in accordance with recognized principles of criminal justice.
"Violation of the people's right' involving use of public office shall be 'Betrayal of Public Trust'
in the first degree (this criminal act) shall be punishable by death
"The International Court of Justice may issue warrants, cease and desist orders
"The Court shall create a Department of International Justice. Agents of said Department shall have the privilege of entry into any signatory state at any time and in any numbers * without power to act, however, unless and until the Court has designated individuals who have violated 'the people's right' and who have refused to obey the mandates of the Court or to submit themselves to its jurisdiction,
interference with agents, including refusal to permit their entry
shall be a violation of 'the people's right' and punishable.
"In the event that there is interference with the Court or its agencies, by military or other forces, to such degree that the Court and its agencies are unable to function, the Court shall have authority to require the Security Council forthwith to furnish military forces and to direct the use of such forces to the end that order shall be restored
* and the Court and its agencies may function for the purpose of effectuating 'the people's right.'
"It will be worthy of a free, enlightened and, at no distant period, great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice.
HENRY M. KANNEE. WASHINGTON, D. C., June 30, 1945.
STATEMENT OF LYEL CLARK VAN HYNING, PRESIDENT, WE THE MOTHERS MOBILIZE
FOR AMERICA, INC., CHICAGO, ILL. The organization which I represent is known as We, The Mothers Mobilize for America, Inc. Its one objective is the preservation of our form of government.
The Government of the United States is not an experiment. It has proven itself not alone in the unprecedented growth of the Commonwealth but in the development of the individual citizen.
Other nations hold greater portions of the earth's surface, with access to richer treasure of the earth, yet we have become the greatest nation on earth by virtue of one thing only-a three divisional form of government with ultimate power in the hands of the people, secured to them by certain checks and balances, which operate to prevent any one department from tyranny. The resultant freedom to the individual is best exemplified today in the American soldier who does the impossible because he cares to think for himself.
Yes, gentlemen this is a Government of the people. Our Constitution for the first time in history recognized the common citizen as superior to his elected representative. The writing of those seven words “We, the people of the United States” was the revolution of all time.
Article 10 of the Bill of Rights, without which the States would not ratify the Constitution, plainly, declares “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”.
The powers delegated to each of the three departments of the Government are plainly written plain language. No one person can commit these United States to any thing which need be considered binding. The secret commitments made by Mr. Roosevelt at Yalta and elsewhere are not in any way binding upon our Congress or Mr. Truman.
The other nations have had 150 years to learn that truth. Ignorance can be no excuse for their acceptance of any promises made by an individual.
The Declaration of Independence which is the cornerstone of our sovereignity defines the things which a free and independent state may do—first being "Full power to levy war." Accordingly, the Constitution, pursuant to this principle gives to Congress the right to "declare war," article 1, section 8.
Yet, the San Francisco Charter places that power in the hands of an individual. You, Senators, are oath-bound to support the Constitution—you cannot give away that which you do not have. To argue that Presidents have violated that law as justification for further violation is tantamount to justifying all subsequent crime after the first. If you are the murderer's second victim you have no case.
The Constitution was ratified-made binding by the people-only they can, alter or annul it.
The Constitution has been praised through the years for the "brevity, precision, and conciseness of its language.” The San Francisco Charter is a hodge podge of ambiguity, one example, in chapter 4, article 13, it makes "recommendations". for promoting international cooperation in the economic, social, cultural, educational, and health selds”—but, "far further responsibilities, functions, and powers of the General Assembly with respect to matters mentioned in paragraph B." You must find chapters 9 and 9X where you read “Article 59—All members pledge themselves."
How it is to be done is explained in the following articles of chapter 9, suffice it to say that this extarordinary power over our health, education, money, etc., is to be placed in the hands of the economic and social council of 18 members chosen by 200 members of the General Assembly, who are appointed by the administrative branches of these various Nations. Thus the five, who represent us will not be elected by the voters or responsible to them,
The Economic and Social Council which will have the power to regulate the intimate details of the lives of our people will be chosen by irresponsible peoples whose ideology is vastly different from our own-antagonistic to the American spirit of personal freedom and individual enterprise.
This is another violation to that immortal document, the Declaration of Independence, which declares our right “to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station, to which the laws of nature and nature's God entitled us.” As per the above instance, the San Francisco Charter is an attempt to dissolve us in an International Witches Brew.
The veto power was fought bitterly in San Francisco by the small Nations, Australia, Colombia, India, Peru, etc. Evatt, Foreign Minister of Australia, called the position of The Big Powers "indefensible.” Fifteen Nations abstained from voting as their protest against it.
Senator Connally's only justification of it was "the dead President had promised.” Dead hands cannot control a brave new world.
In this veto of the big and powerful, we see the ugly picture of our own great country, which has always been for the underdog, now beating small Nations into line by the use of might. We may bribe the rulers, but the people are in revolt against such rulers.
How can there be peace with two-thirds of the people of the world held in thrall to the wishes of a Big Five? It has been tried before and it failed, and it will ever fail as long as liberty lives in the hearts of men. The Holy Alliance of 1815 was the San Francisco Charter of that time. Its members, while giving lip service to system of government professing the principles of Christianity, in reality had no other aim than to crush by blood and iron every movement against despotism.
The Monroe Doctrine was a defense against the land-grabbing tactics of that big combine, whose world objective was that a Big Three could keep peace.
The Monroe Doctrine has protected the Western Hemisphere and its people from the imperialism of the old world gang for over 100 years. Under this San Francisco Charter, if Russia wished to eat up Mexico or Nicaragua, as she has eaten up Poland, we have to ask the Security Council if we may act to prevent her, and by one veto, Russia herself can forbid it. What then of the good-neighbor policy?
The world has been controlled by Big Three's or Five's or One's for thousands of years, and there has been no peace. The whcle world is in revolt against the domination of the few and this San Francisco Charter is only a final chapter in a long series to make the world subservient to the will of a clique of international materialists. They have used the fair name of “peace" to deceive the people into giving up their inalienable rights, while advancing their control over the people.
This conspiracy to enslave all peoples has been going on for years, by means of many well financed so-called "peace” organizations and charity cloaked monopolies.
Those who have lived off the sweat and toil of their fellow men, have conspired to reduce the worker to complete servitude.
The Charter is the final chapter in the long series of secret commitments by world politicians and financiers, who have planned wars and depressions.
The peoples of all countries have only to consider the groups who are for the Charter, to realize that they are the great money powers. They control all mediums of expression. They smear and excoriate any one who dares speak in opposition. To be a simple student of Christian culture is to be styled unAmerican. In proof that there is a conspiracy we plan, I submit for examination this postwar world map, which was completed in October 1941, 2 months before Pearl Harbor. Also, I submit a recent map of June 5, 1945. The territorial claims, the spheres of influence, are the same in both; so alike that one could be superimposed upon the other.
Who planned it so exactly and why? Who is responsible for all the slaughter and suffering?
The same people who wanted the war want the Charter. Why? If you find the few who have profited most from the war, you will have the answer.
Tell the mothers of dead and dying boys that it is only part of a plan.
Many, of course, favor the Charter as they favored war, victims of an expensive propaganda which discourages any thinking which is at variance with the "national emergency." These know nothing of the real significance of the Charter or the plan. The few who planned both know.
No peace loving nations were at San Francisco. They weren't permitted; they might make a real peace.
Only war-loving nations were there and "men who make war cannot make peace.' Winston Churchill said that. "You have swaHowed everything else,” he said; "why not swallow that.'