U.S. President Trump:  War Criminals Bush, Obama etc. for War in the Middle East, etc.; "Osama Bin Ladin" was Labeled with Our Ancestor's Name "Geronimo" ---- Beyond Wicked !

                                                               Review by Amelia Gora (2020)                                   

U.S. President Trump Said that the U.S. Lied and Caused the Death of Millions and ... Note - The following Lies are documented in the above article: ... Nov 12, 2015 · Posted by Amelia Gora on October 6, 2015 at 11:01pm in Politics ... the war left tens of thousands of US troops wounded and hundreds of thousands suffering ...

Note:  Google put out wrong info because the date of the article is 2019 and NOT 2015.....Something very questionable about this entry on their google query.

Reference:  http://iolani-theroyalhawk.blogspot.com/2019/10/us-president-trump-said-that-us-lied.html

 Noam Chompski's article:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28161.htm

Osama bin Laden's Death: There Is Much More To Say

By Noam Chomsky

May 22, 2011 "Information Clearing House" -- On May 1, 2011, Osama bin Laden was killed in his virtually unprotected compound by a raiding mission of 79 Navy Seals, who entered Pakistan by helicopter. After many lurid stories were provided by the government and withdrawn, official reports made it increasingly clear that the operation was a planned assassination, multiply violating elementary norms of international law, beginning with the invasion itself.

There appears to have been no attempt to apprehend the unarmed victim, as presumably could have been done by 79 commandos facing no opposition - except, they report, from his wife, also unarmed, who they shot in self-defense when she "lunged" at them (according to the White House).

A plausible reconstruction of the events is provided by veteran Middle East correspondent Yochi Dreazen and colleagues in The Atlantic. Dreazen, formerly the military correspondent for the Wall Street Journal, is senior correspondent for the National Journal Group covering military affairs and national security. According to their investigation, White House planning appears not to have considered the option of capturing OBL alive: "The administration had made clear to the military's clandestine Joint Special Operations Command that it wanted bin Laden dead, according to a senior U.S. official with knowledge of the discussions. A high-ranking military officer briefed on the assault said the SEALs knew their mission was not to take him alive."

The authors add: "For many at the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency who had spent nearly a decade hunting bin Laden, killing the militant was a necessary and justified act of vengeance." Furthermore, "Capturing bin Laden alive would have also presented the administration with an array of nettlesome legal and political challenges." Better, then, to assassinate him, dumping his body into the sea without the autopsy considered essential after a killing, whether considered justified or not – an act that predictably provoked both anger and skepticism in much of the Muslim world.

As the Atlantic inquiry observes, "The decision to kill bin Laden outright was the clearest illustration to date of a little-noticed aspect of the Obama administration's counterterror policy. The Bush administration captured thousands of suspected militants and sent them to detention camps in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay. The Obama administration, by contrast, has focused on eliminating individual terrorists rather than attempting to take them alive." That is one significant difference between Bush and Obama. The authors quote former West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, who "told German TV that the U.S. raid was 'quite clearly a violation of international law' and that bin Laden should have been detained and put on trial," contrasting Schmidt with US Attorney General Eric Holder, who "defended the decision to kill bin Laden although he didn't pose an immediate threat to the Navy SEALs, telling a House panel on Tuesday that the assault had been 'lawful, legitimate and appropriate in every way'."

The disposal of the body without autopsy was also criticized by allies. The highly regarded British barrister Geoffrey Robertson, who supported the intervention and opposed the execution largely on pragmatic grounds, nevertheless described Obama's claim that "justice was done" as an "absurdity" that should have been obvious to a former professor of constitutional law. Pakistan law "requires a colonial inquest on violent death, and international human rights law insists that the 'right to life' mandates an inquiry whenever violent death occurs from government or police action. The U.S. is therefore under a duty to hold an inquiry that will satisfy the world as to the true circumstances of this killing." Robertson adds that "The law permits criminals to be shot in self-defense if they (or their accomplices) resist arrest in ways that endanger those striving to apprehend them. They should, if possible, be given the opportunity to surrender, but even if they do not come out with their hands up, they must be taken alive if that can be achieved without risk. Exactly how bin Laden came to be 'shot in the head' (especially if it was the back of his head, execution-style) therefore requires explanation. Why a hasty 'burial at sea' without a post mortem, as the law requires?"

Robertson attributes the murder to "America's obsessive belief in capital punishment—alone among advanced nations—[which] is reflected in its rejoicing at the manner of bin Laden's demise." For example, Nation columnist Eric Alterman writes that "The killing of Osama bin Laden was a just and necessary undertaking."

Robertson usefully reminds us that "It was not always thus. When the time came to consider the fate of men much more steeped in wickedness than Osama bin Laden - namely the Nazi leadership - the British government wanted them hanged within six hours of capture. President Truman demurred, citing the conclusion of Justice Robert Jackson that summary execution 'would not sit easily on the American conscience or be remembered by our children with pride ... the only course is to determine the innocence or guilt of the accused after a hearing as dispassionate as the times will permit and upon a record that will leave our reasons and motives clear'."

The editors of the Daily Beast comment that "The joy is understandable, but to many outsiders, unattractive. It endorses what looks increasingly like a cold-blooded assassination as the White House is now forced to admit that Osama bin Laden was unarmed when he was shot twice in the head."

In societies that profess some respect for law, suspects are apprehended and brought to fair trial. I stress "suspects." In June 2002, FBI head Robert Mueller, in what the Washington Post described as "among his most detailed public comments on the origins of the attacks," could say only that "investigators believe the idea of the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon came from al Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan, the actual plotting was done in Germany, and the financing came through the United Arab Emirates from sources in Afghanistan.... We think the masterminds of it were in Afghanistan, high in the al Qaeda leadership." What the FBI believed and thought in June 2002 they didn't know eight months earlier, when Washington dismissed tentative offers by the Taliban (how serious, we do not know) to extradite bin Laden if they were presented with evidence. Thus it is not true, as the President claimed in his White House statement, that "We quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda."

There has never been any reason to doubt what the FBI believed in mid-2002, but that leaves us far from the proof of guilt required in civilized societies – and whatever the evidence might be, it does not warrant murdering a suspect who could, it seems, have been easily apprehended and brought to trial. Much the same is true of evidence provided since. Thus the 9/11 Commission provided extensive circumstantial evidence of bin Laden's role in 9/11, based primarily on what it had been told about confessions by prisoners in Guantanamo. It is doubtful that much of that would hold up in an independent court, considering the ways confessions were elicited. But in any event, the conclusions of a congressionally authorized investigation, however convincing one finds them, plainly fall short of a sentence by a credible court, which is what shifts the category of the accused from suspect to convicted. There is much talk of bin Laden's "confession," but that was a boast, not a confession, with as much credibility as my "confession" that I won the Boston marathon. The boast tells us a lot about his character, but nothing about his responsibility for what he regarded as a great achievement, for which he wanted to take credit.

Again, all of this is, transparently, quite independent of one's judgments about his responsibility, which seemed clear immediately, even before the FBI inquiry, and still does.

It is worth adding that bin Laden's responsibility was recognized in much of the Muslim world, and condemned. One significant example is the distinguished Lebanese cleric Sheikh Fadlallah, greatly respected by Hizbollah and Shia groups generally, outside Lebanon as well. He too had been targeted for assassination: by a truck bomb outside a mosque, in a CIA-organized operation in 1985. He escaped, but 80 others were killed, mostly women and girls, as they left the mosque – one of those innumerable crimes that do not enter the annals of terror because of the fallacy of "wrong agency." Sheikh Fadlallah sharply condemned the 9/11 attacks, as did many other leading figures in the Muslim world, within the Jihadi movement as well. Among others, the head of Hizbollah, Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah, sharply condemned bin Laden and Jihadi ideology.

One of the leading specialists on the Jihadi movement, Fawaz Gerges, suggests that the movement might have been split at that time had the US exploited the opportunity instead of mobilizing the movement, particularly by the attack on Iraq, a great boon to bin Laden, which led to a sharp increase in terror, as intelligence agencies had anticipated. That conclusion was confirmed by the former head of Britain's domestic intelligence agency MI5 at the Chilcot hearings investigating the background for the war. Confirming other analyses, she testified that both British and US intelligence were aware that Saddam posed no serious threat and that the invasion was likely to increase terror; and that the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan had radicalized parts of a generation of Muslims who saw the military actions as an "attack on Islam." As is often the case, security was not a high priority for state action.

It might be instructive to ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush's compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic (after proper burial rites, of course). Uncontroversially, he is not a "suspect" but the "decider" who gave the orders to invade Iraq - that is, to commit the "supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole" (quoting the Nuremberg Tribunal) for which Nazi criminals were hanged: in Iraq, the hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, destruction of much of the country and the national heritage, and the murderous sectarian conflict that has now spread to the rest of the region. Equally uncontroversially, these crimes vastly exceed anything attributed to bin Laden.

To say that all of this is uncontroversial, as it is, is not to imply that it is not denied. The existence of flat earthers does not change the fact that, uncontroversially, the earth is not flat. Similarly, it is uncontroversial that Stalin and Hitler were responsible for horrendous crimes, though loyalists deny it. All of this should, again, be too obvious for comment, and would be, except in an atmosphere of hysteria so extreme that it blocks rational thought.

Similarly, it is uncontroversial that Bush and associates did commit the "supreme international crime," the crime of aggression, at least if we take the Nuremberg Tribunal seriously. The crime of aggression was defined clearly enough by Justice Robert Jackson, Chief of Counsel for the United States at Nuremberg, reiterated in an authoritative General Assembly resolution. An "aggressor," Jackson proposed to the Tribunal in his opening statement, is a state that is the first to commit such actions as "Invasion of its armed forces, with or without a declaration of war, of the territory of another State...." No one, even the most extreme supporter of the aggression, denies that Bush and associates did just that.

We might also do well to recall Jackson's eloquent words at Nuremberg on the principle of universality: "If certain acts of violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us." And elsewhere: "We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well."

It is also clear that alleged intentions are irrelevant. Japanese fascists apparently did believe that by ravaging China they were laboring to turn it into an "earthly paradise." We don't know whether Hitler believed that he was defending Germany from the "wild terror" of the Poles, or was taking over Czechoslovakia to protect its population from ethnic conflict and provide them with the benefits of a superior culture, or was saving the glories of the civilization of the Greeks from barbarians of East and West, as his acolytes claimed (Martin Heidegger). And it's even conceivable that Bush and company believed that they were protecting the world from destruction by Saddam's nuclear weapons. All irrelevant, though ardent loyalists on all sides may try to convince themselves otherwise.

We are left with two choices: either Bush and associates are guilty of the "supreme international crime" including all the evils that follow, crimes that go vastly beyond anything attributed to bin Laden; or else we declare that the Nuremberg proceedings were a farce and that the allies were guilty of judicial murder. Again, that is entirely independent of the question of the guilt of those charged: established by the Nuremberg Tribunal in the case of the Nazi criminals, plausibly surmised from the outset in the case of bin Laden.

A few days before the bin Laden assassination, Orlando Bosch died peacefully in Florida, where he resided along with his terrorist accomplice Luis Posada Carilles, and many others. After he was accused of dozens of terrorist crimes by the FBI, Bosch was granted a presidential pardon by Bush I over the objections of the Justice Department, which found the conclusion "inescapable that it would be prejudicial to the public interest for the United States to provide a safe haven for Bosch. "The coincidence of deaths at once calls to mind the Bush II doctrine, which has "already become a de facto rule of international relations," according to the noted Harvard international relations specialist Graham Allison. The doctrine revokes "the sovereignty of states that provide sanctuary to terrorists," Allison writes, referring to the pronouncement of Bush II that "those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves," directed to the Taliban. Such states, therefore, have lost their sovereignty and are fit targets for bombing and terror; for example, the state that harbored Bosch and his associate - not to mention some rather more significant candidates. When Bush issued this new "de facto rule of international relations," no one seemed to notice that he was calling for invasion and destruction of the US and murder of its criminal presidents.

None of this is problematic, of course, if we reject Justice Jackson's principle of universality, and adopt instead the principle that the US is self-immunized against international law and conventions - as, in fact, the government has frequently made very clear, an important fact, much too little understood.

It is also worth thinking about the name given to the operation: Operation Geronimo. The imperial mentality is so profound that few seem able to perceive that the White House is glorifying bin Laden by calling him "Geronimo" - the leader of courageous resistance to the invaders who sought to consign his people to the fate of "that hapless race of native Americans, which we are exterminating with such merciless and perfidious cruelty, among the heinous sins of this nation, for which I believe God will one day bring [it] to judgement," in the words of the great grand strategist John Quincy Adams, the intellectual architect of manifest destiny, long after his own contributions to these sins had passed. Some did comprehend, not surprisingly. The remnants of that hapless race protested vigorously. Choice of the name is reminiscent of the ease with which we name our murder weapons after victims of our crimes: Apache, Blackhawk, Tomahawk, ... We might react differently if the Luftwaffe were to call its fighter planes "Jew" and "Gypsy".

The examples mentioned would fall under the category "American exceptionalism," were it not for the fact that easy suppression of one's own crimes is virtually ubiquitous among powerful states, at least those that are not defeated and forced to acknowledge reality. Other current illustrations are too numerous to mention. To take just one, of great current significance, consider Obama's terror weapons (drones) in Pakistan. Suppose that during the 1980s, when they were occupying Afghanistan, the Russians had carried out targeted assassinations in Pakistan aimed at those who were financing, arming and training the insurgents – quite proudly and openly. For example, targeting the CIA station chief in Islamabad, who explained that he "loved" the "noble goal" of his mission: to "kill Soviet Soldiers ... not to liberate Afghanistan." There is no need to imagine the reaction, but there is a crucial distinction: that was them, this is us.

What are the likely consequences of the killing of bin Laden? For the Arab world, it will probably mean little. He had long been a fading presence, and in the past few months was eclipsed by the Arab Spring. His significance in the Arab world is captured by the headline in the New York Times for an op-ed by Middle East/al Qaeda specialist Gilles Kepel; "Bin Laden was Dead Already." Kepel writes that few in the Arab world are likely to care. That headline might have been dated far earlier, had the US not mobilized the Jihadi movement by the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, as suggested by the intelligence agencies and scholarship. As for the Jihadi movement, within it bin Laden was doubtless a venerated symbol, but apparently did not play much more of a role for this "network of networks," as analysts call it, which undertake mostly independent operations.

The most immediate and significant consequences are likely to be in Pakistan. There is much discussion of Washington's anger that Pakistan didn't turn over bin Laden. Less is said about the fury in Pakistan that the US invaded their territory to carry out a political assassination. Anti-American fervor had already reached a very high peak in Pakistan, and these events are likely to exacerbate it.

Pakistan is the most dangerous country on earth, also the world's fastest growing nuclear power, with a huge arsenal. It is held together by one stable institution, the military. One of the leading specialists on Pakistan and its military, Anatol Lieven, writes that "if the US ever put Pakistani soldiers in a position where they felt that honour and patriotism required them to fight America, many would be very glad to do so." And if Pakistan collapsed, an "absolutely inevitable result would be the flow of large numbers of highly trained ex-soldiers, including explosive experts and engineers, to extremist groups." That is the primary threat he sees of leakage of fissile materials to Jihadi hands, a horrendous eventuality.

The Pakistani military have already been pushed to the edge by US attacks on Pakistani sovereignty. One factor is the drone attacks in Pakistan that Obama escalated immediately after the killing of bin Laden, rubbing salt in the wounds. But there is much more, including the demand that the Pakistani military cooperate in the US war against the Afghan Taliban, whom the overwhelming majority of Pakistanis, the military included, see as fighting a just war of resistance against an invading army, according to Lieven.

The bin Laden operation could have been the spark that set off a conflagration, with dire consequences, particularly if the invading force had been compelled to fight its way out, as was anticipated. Perhaps the assassination was perceived as an "act of vengeance," as Robertson concludes. Whatever the motive was, it could hardly have been security. As in the case of the "supreme international crime" in Iraq, the bin Laden assassination illustrates that security is often not a high priority for state action, contrary to received doctrine.

There is much more to say, but even the most obvious and elementary facts should provide us with a good deal to think about.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Amelia Gora 27 minutes agoDelete

twitter:

amelia gora

@hwnwahine

4m

Checking out "WIKILEAKS: IT WAS ALL ABOUT THE OIL! or A Reason Why the U.S. P" on Maoliworld: https://maoliworld.com/forum/topics/wikileaks-it-was-all-about… Reposting...reminding everyone that U.S. President Trump said Bush, Obama (and Biden in tow) are War Criminals!

WIKILEAKS: IT WAS ALL ABOUT THE OIL! or A Reason Why the U.S. Presidents, et. als. Hate the Truth...

9-11 tragedy, we must fight to expose it.       The Big Lie is a propaganda technique. It was defined by Adolf Hitler in his 1925 autobiography…

maoliworld.com

1

amelia gora

@hwnwahine

Replying to

@hwnwahine

Bing Crosby & David Bowie - "The Little Drummer Boy (Peace On Earth)"

from "Bing Crosby's Merrie Olde Christmas" Bing passed away before this could aire on television. Initial release is November 30, 1977.

youtube.com

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Amelia Gora 22 minutes agoDelete

btw:

Noam Chomsky's article identifies Geronimo.........

who happens to be my ancestor!

THE HIDDEN BRANCHES OF GERONIMO'S FAMILY IN THE ...

maoliworld.com › forum › topics › showLastReply

THE HIDDEN BRANCHES OF GERONIMO'S FAMILY IN THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS ...Am One of His Descendants too.... Posted by Amelia Gora on October 4, ...

Geronimo - His Descendants and Heirs

geronimo2014.blogspot.com

Social Media Posts - to be updated when concerning Geronimo Families. › Amelia Gora 6 mins · Posted my recent message on my Geronimo Families Website: ...

Our Geronimo Family Genealogies with ... - IOLANI - The Royal Hawk

theiolani.blogspot.com › 2020/11 › our-geronimo-fami...

Mary Castro married John Gora and had Amelia Gora (and siblings). Geronimo, Apache Leader, Medicine man, our great great grandfather, was the father of our ...

Geronimo's descendants Exist ... - IOLANI - The Royal Hawk

iolani-theroyalhawk.blogspot.com › 2016/11 › geroni...

Geronimo's descendants Exist........supporting American Indians from the ... Amelia Gora my Spanish Costillian ancestor - Castro who had a large family located ...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Amelia Gora 21 minutes agoDelete

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Amelia Gora 16 minutes agoDelete

The Bush Family has something to do with the removal of our ancestors skull..........Return it please.........His remains are not for you to have, own, possess........Return it!

Mystery Of The Bones: Geronimo's Missing Skull : NPR

www.npr.org › templates › story › story

Mar 9, 2009 — For decades, mystery has surrounded an elite secret society at Yale University called the Order of Skull and Bones. One of the organization's ...

Geronimo's Heirs Sue Secret Yale Society Over His Skull ...

www.nytimes.com › 2009/02/20 › 20geronimo

Feb 19, 2009 — Skull and Bones, a secret society at Yale with ties to the Bush family, is accused of robbing Geronimo's grave in 1918 and keeping his skull in a ...

Did Bush's Grandfather Steal Geronimo's Skull? - ABC News

abcnews.go.com › story

Jul 8, 2009 — The oft-told tale is that Bush's grandfather, Prescott Bush, and some of his buddies at Yale, dug up the grave of Apache chief Geronimo, removing ...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Amelia Gora 11 minutes agoDelete

fort sill

brad meltzer

apache

bones

tucson

geronimo's grave

native american

meltzer lost

yale university

bonesmen

prescott bush

chief

arizona

george w

w bush

george bush

• ▶ Reply
• Edit   4 minutes left to edit your comment.  

Permalink Reply by Amelia Gora 9 minutes agoDelete

Geronimo's Skull - Top 10 Famous Stolen Body Parts - TIME

content.time.com › time › specials › packages › article

Geronimo's Skull. By Ishaan TharoorTuesday, May 10, 2011. dek Kean Collection / Getty Images. It's a strange fate that the bones of one of America's most ...

Geronimo's Skull at Yale's Skull and Bones - DesertUSA

www.desertusa.com › desert-people › geronimo_yale

Geronimo's Skull at Yale's Skull and Bones Secret Society and how it got there. ... Harlyn Geronimo, "... and find that, for instance, bones are missing, you know ...

Brad Meltzer's Lost History: Geronimo's Stolen Skull | History ...

www.youtube.com › watch

1:55

A journalist describes a letter he discovered alleging that members of the Skull and Bones secret society stole ...

Dec 5, 2014 · Uploaded by HISTORY

Who Stole Geronimo's Skull? | Outside Online

www.outsideonline.com › who-stole-geronimos-skull

Nov 1, 2006 — Geronimo the younger believes he has no choice but to tear up his great-grandfather's grave to do DNA testing and see if the corpse is missing ...

Watch Geronimo's Skull Full Episode - Brad Meltzer's Lost ...

www.history.com › shows › season-1 › episode-6

Among the missing: Apache warrior Geronimo's skull, rumored to be robbed from the grave by the top secret society the “Skull and Bones.” Then, Teddy ...

The Strange Saga of Geronimo's Skull | Cover Stories | Santa ...

www.sfreporter.com › news › coverstories › 2009/07/01

Jun 30, 2009 — The most recent entry in the saga of Geronimo's skull came in the fall of ... Apache whose skull really is missing, and that's Mangas Coloradas.

• ▶ Reply
• Edit   6 minutes left to edit your comment.  

Permalink Reply by Amelia Gora 8 minutes agoDelete

• ▶ Reply
• Edit   7 minutes left to edit your comment.  

Permalink Reply by Amelia Gora 2 minutes agoDelete

tweet:

amelia gora

@hwnwahine

Replying to

@hwnwahine

The Bush Family has something to do with the removal of our ancestors skull..........Return it please.........His remains are not for you to have, own, possess........Return it! Mystery Of The Bones: Geronimo's Missing Skull : NPR http://npr.org › templates › story

Home Page Top Stories

NPR delivers breaking national and world news. Also top stories from business, politics, health, science, technology, music, arts and culture. Subscribe to podcasts and RSS feeds.

npr.org

3:56 AM · Nov 18, 2020·Twitter Web App

View Tweet activity

Add another Tweet

amelia gora

@hwnwahine

38s

Replying to

@hwnwahine

Ooklah the Moc -Hell Fire

Ooklah the Moc

youtube.com

Reference:  https://maoliworld.com/forum/topics/wikileaks-it-was-all-about

Thursday, October 17, 2019

U.S. President Trump Said that the U.S. Lied and Caused the Death of Millions and Now Moves to Make Corrections with Turkey's President

U.S. President Trump Said that the U.S. Lied and Caused the Death of Millions and Now Moves to Make Corrections with Turkey's President

                                                               Review posted by Amelia Gora (2019)


The following articles were posted affecting the United States:

1)  Pertaining to the Seizure of Hawaii, War with Spain, etc.:


"Archives takes wraps off 1899 Senate transcript, Secret debate on U.S. seizure of Hawaii revealed"

Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Vol. 58, No. 32, Saturday, February 1, 1969

The following are important excerpts of the above article:

"WASHINGTON (AP) - Now it can be told--what happened during the longest of three secret Senate cessions, during the Spanish-American War, a debate over whether to take over Hawaii."

"The debate of nearly three hours on that day - May 31, 1898 - and in two secret sessions the previous month had remained locked up until last week.  Then at the request of a historian who noted gaps in the Congressional Record, the Senate passed a resolution authorizing the National Archives to take the wraps off the debate transcript."

"The government's only explanation for the long suppression of the debate records is that they had been long forgotten."

"THE SECRECY WAS clamped on during a debate over whether to seize the Hawaiian Islands - called the Sandwich Islands then - or merely developing leased areas of Pearl Harbor to reinforce the U.S. fleet iat Manila Bay."

"PEARL HARBOR, ALREADY UNDER LEASE, Stewart argued, wouldn't be much use until costly dredging operations opened the entrance channel. "Either we must have the Sandwich Islands," he declared, "or the administration must recall Dewey."

"THE UNITED STATES ANNEXED the Hawaiian Islands five weeks after that debate.  But before the Senate reopened its doors that day, Morgan steered the discussion back to Cuba, the original cause of the war with Spain."

"The first secret session, April 25, 1898, involved technical and emotional debate over wording the declaration of war and why it or some accompanying resolution did not formally recognize the independence of Cuba or at least declare the Cubans to have the rights of belligerents in the conflict."

"THE SENATE ENDED UP BY ACCEPTING the House passed version reading that "war and the same is hereby declared to exist and that war has existed since the 21st of April" - four days earlier."

"Dropped from the final declaration was a Senate proposed tagline requiring the administration to "prosecute said war to a successful conclusion."

"Sen. Stephen White of California joined the unanimous vote for war "even with that mild prevarication" about when the war started."

**************

Note - The following Lies are documented in the above article:


           U.S. debate on whether to take over Hawaii occurred five (5) years AFTER taking over
           Hawaii, a neutral, friendly, non-violent nation in a planned move since 1840.


           PEARL HARBOR WAS UNDER LEASE

           ANNEXATION OF HAWAII WAS A LIE

          WAR WITH SPAIN WAS MADE WITHOUT THE SENATE APPROVAL because War
           started/existed "four days earlier"


Reference:

All 770 issues of the IOLANI - The Royal Hawk news on the web published by Amelia Gora

1. United States Secretary of State John W. Foster "helped ...

   https://iolani-theroyalhawk.blogspot.com/2018/11/united-states-secretary-of-state-john...
   • Author: Hwnwahine
2. United States Secretary of State John W. Foster "helped direct the overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy ... 2015 · The Following Alii Nui/Alii Names Are Part of the Royal Families/ Royal Persons Who Are Not Subject to the Laws Posted by Amelia Gora on January 23, 2015 at 5:53pm in Politics View Discussions Royal Persons are Not Subject to the ...

3. Hawaiian Kingdom: February 2019 - he-mokupuni-pae-aina-o ...

   https://he-mokupuni-pae-aina-o-hawaii.blogspot.com/2019/02
4. See more images of john foster article by amelia gora. ... Nov 12, 2015 · Posted by Amelia Gora on October 6, 2015 at 11:01pm in Politics View Discussions Hawaiian Kingdom Records Nos. 2015-1006 Matters of the Treaty which supersedes State Laws, etc. Sereno Edwards Bishop - Wikipedia ...

5. IOLANI - The Royal Hawk: 2018

   https://iolani-theroyalhawk.blogspot.com/2018
6. Dec 30, 2018 · The Legal Families of Queen Liliuokalani - posted 12/30/2018 ... 735 issues of the IOLANI-The Royal Hawk news on the web, etc. ... John Gora married Mary Castro and had Amelia Gora (and siblings). Queen Kapiolani was the administrator of Princess Poomaikelani's lands. She was a hanai/adopted daughter of Kaluakini, a Kamehameha descendant who ...
7. Images of John Foster's Article Posted by Amelia Gora
8. bing.com/images
9. See more images of John Foster's Article Posted by Amelia Gora

10. Amelia Gora-Kanaka Maoli Truth : COLOR CODED CHART FOR ...

    https://amelia-gora.blogspot.com/2017/12/color-coded-chart-for-heightened.html
    • Author: Hwnwahine
11. other researches by Amelia Gora. ... John Foster Dulles. 52nd U.S. Secretary of State 12th cousin 2 times removed via William Mainwaring. ... Posted by hwnwahine. No comments: Post a Comment. Newer Post Older Post Home. Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom) Translate. Picture Window theme.

12. Diary: The Royal Families In The Hawaiian ... - OpEdNews

    https://www.opednews.com/Diary/The-Royal-Families...
    • Author: Amelia Gora
13. Jan 17, 2012 · Diary: The Royal Families In The Hawaiian Islands and the Problematic Masons/Freemasons - Remembering the Criminal dethronement of Queen Liliuokalani by Americans in 1893 with the help of U.S ...

14. The Royal Families in the Hawaiian Islands by Amelia Gora ...

    https://theiolani.wordpress.com/2015/02/01/the-royal-
    • Author: February 1, 2015
15. Feb 01, 2015 · The Following Alii Nui/Alii Names Are Part of the Royal Families/ Royal Persons Who Are Not Subject to the Laws Posted by Amelia Gora on January 23, 2015 at 5:53pm in Politics View Discussions Royal Persons are Not Subject to the Laws; UPDATING THE ROYAL FAMILIES GENEALOGIES by Amelia Gora (2011; 2014; 2015) The following…

16. James Campbell Trust - Based on Fraud Land Claims

    https://hawaiiankingdomnews.blogspot.com/2015/07/...
    • Author: Amelia Gora
17. James Campbell Trust - Based on Fraud Land Claims ... and articles posted by Amelia Gora. Tags: Conspiracies, Evidence, Hawaiian, Heirs, Issues, Kamehameha, Kingdom, Legal, Treason. ... Amelia Gora, sister of John F. Gora did speak as John F. Gora (wife Melissa-Ann Kamala Gora) behalf based on the 1781 Bill of Rights of Rights where a ...

18. Amelia Gora-Kanaka Maoli Truth : Keep for the Records with ...

    https://amelia-gora.blogspot.com/2011/01/keep-for-records-with-other-articles.html
    • Author: Hwnwahine
19. Senator Owen: I wish to put in the Record the secret treaty of Verona of November 22, 1822, showing what this ancient conflict is between the rule of the few and the rule of the many. I wish to call the attention of the Senate to this treaty because it is the threat of this treaty which was the basis of the Monroe doctrine.

20. Legal Notice: Judicial Tribunal - News from the Hawaiian ...

    https://hawaiiankingdomnews.blogspot.com/2015/10/legal-notice-judicial-tribunal.html
    • Author: Amelia Gora
21. Hawaiian Kingdom Records Nos. 2015-0410 and 2015-0420 Matters of the Treaty which supersedes State Laws, etc. - The Fifteenth (15th) Judicial Tribunal Meeting Held On July 17, 2015, Affecting USA/United States of America Treaty with the Hawaiian Kingdom, DEC. 20, 1849/1850 from Amelia Gora, Royal Person, Royal Family Member, One of Kamehameha III - Kauikeaouli's Heirs and …

2)  Admission by U.S. President Trump About the U.S. Causing the Death of Millions:

Trump Admits US Killed Tens of Millions in War Based on Lies

Bill Van Auken on 2019-10-11

Amid the storm of denunciations—extending from right-wing Republicans to the Democratic Party, the New York Times and the pseudo-left Jacobin magazine—of his decision to pull US troops out of Syria, President Donald Trump issued an extraordinary tweet on Wednesday in defense of his policy:

“The United States has spent EIGHT TRILLION DOLLARS fighting and policing in the Middle East. Thousands of our Great Soldiers have died or been badly wounded. Millions of people have died on the other side. GOING INTO THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE WORST DECISION EVER MADE … IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY! We went to war under a false & now disproven premise, WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.”

Trump’s Twitter account has dominated the US news cycle ever since he took office. Tweets have introduced fascistic new policies on immigration, announced the frequent firings of White House personnel and cabinet members and signaled shifts in US foreign policy.

Last month, amid the mounting of an impeachment inquiry, which the Democratic leadership in Congress has focused exclusively on “national security” concerns stemming from Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, the US president set a new personal record, tweeting 800 times.

Yet the corporate media has chosen to ignore Trump’s tweet on the protracted US military intervention in the Middle East.

From the standpoint of the bitter internecine struggle unfolding within the US capitalist state, the tweet expresses the sharp divisions over US global strategy.

While those around Trump want to focus entirely on preparation for confrontation with China, layers within the political establishment and the military and intelligence apparatus see the continuation of the US intervention to assert its hegemony over the Middle East and countering Russia as critical for American imperialism’s drive to impose its dominance over the Eurasian landmass.

But aside from these disputes over geo-strategic policy, the admission by a sitting US president that Washington launched a war under a “false” and “disproven” premise that ended up killing “millions” has direct political implications, whatever Trump’s intentions.

It amounts to an official admission from the US government that successive US administrations are responsible for war crimes resulting in mass murder.

Trump acknowledges that Washington launched the 2003 invasion of Iraq on the “false premise” of “weapons of mass destruction.” In other words, the administration of George W. Bush lied to the people of the United States and the entire planet in order to facilitate a war of aggression.

Under international law, this war was a criminal action and a patently unjustified violation of Iraq’s sovereignty.

The Nuremberg Tribunal, convened in the aftermath of the Second World War, declared the planning and launching of a war of aggression the supreme crime of the Nazis, from which all of their horrific atrocities flowed, including the Holocaust.

On the basis of this legal principle, Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top US officials, as well as their successors in the Obama and Trump administrations who continued the US intervention in the Middle East—expanding it into Syria and Libya, while threatening a new war against Iran—should all face prosecution as war criminals.

The real basis for the war was the long-held predatory conception that by militarily conquering Iraq Washington could seize control of the vast energy resources of the Middle East—giving it a stranglehold over the oil lifeline to its principal rivals in Asia and Europe—and thereby offset the decline of US imperialism’s global hegemony.

The World Socialist Web Site described the consequences of the US assault on Iraq and its people as “sociocide,” the deliberate destruction of what had been among the most advanced societies, in terms of education, health care and infrastructure, in the Middle East (see: “The US war and occupation of Iraq—the murder of a society”).

The casualties inflicted by this war were staggering. According to a comprehensive 2006 study done by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and published in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet, the death toll resulting from the US invasion rose to over 655,000 in the first 40 months of the US war alone.

The continued slaughter resulting from the US occupation and the bloody sectarian civil war provoked by Washington’s divide-and-rule tactics claimed many more direct victims, while the destruction of basic water, power, health care and sanitation infrastructure killed even more.

The mass slaughter continued under the Obama administration with the launching in 2014 of what was billed as a US war against ISIS.

This war, which saw the most intense bombing campaign since Vietnam and reduced Mosul, Ramadi, Fallujah and other Iraqi cities to rubble, claimed tens if not hundreds of thousands more lives.

Recent estimates of the death toll resulting from 16 years of US military intervention in Iraq range as high as 2.4 million people.

The Iraq war has had its own disastrous consequences for US society as well. In addition to claiming the lives of more than 4,500 US troops and nearly 4,000 US contractors, the war left tens of thousands of US troops wounded and hundreds of thousands suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injuries.

What of all the families in the United States who lost children, siblings or parents in a war that Trump now admits was based upon lies?

Together with the veterans suffering from the wounds of this war, they should have the right to sue the US government for the results of its criminal conduct.

The cost of the US wars launched since 2001 has risen to nearly $6 trillion, the bulk of it stemming from Iraq, while interest cost on the money borrowed to pay for these wars will eventually amount to $8 trillion.

These grievous costs to US society are compounded by the social and political impact of waging an illegal war, resulting in the shredding of democratic rights and the wholesale corruption of a political system that is ever more dominated by the military and intelligence apparatus.

The media’s silence on Trump’s admission of war crimes carried out by US imperialism in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East is self-incriminating.

It reflects the complicity of the corporate media in these crimes, with its selling of the lies used to promote the aggression against Iraq and its attempt to suppress antiwar sentiment.

Nowhere was this war propaganda developed more deliberately than at the New York Times which inundated the American public with lying reports about “weapons of mass destruction” by Judith Miller and the noxious opinion pieces by chief foreign affairs commentator Thomas “I have no problem with a war for oil” Friedman.

By all rights, the media editors and pundits responsible for promoting a criminal war of aggression deserve to sit in the dock alongside the war criminals who launched it.

The corporate media has also ignored Trump’s indictment of the US wars in the Middle East because it speaks for those sections of the US ruling establishment that want them to continue.

Trump’s cynical nationalist and populist rhetoric about ending US wars in the Middle East is aimed at currying support with a US population that is overwhelmingly hostile to these wars, even as his administration—backed by the Democrats—has secured a record $738 billion military budget in preparation for far more catastrophic wars, including against nuclear-armed China and Russia.

If the fascistic occupant of the White House is able to adopt the farcical posture of an opponent of imperialist war, it is entirely thanks to the Democrats, whose opposition to Trump is bound up with the concerns of the US intelligence agencies and the Pentagon over his conduct of foreign policy.

While there was mass opposition to the invasion of Iraq, the pseudo-left in the United States, together with the media, worked might and main to channel it behind the Democratic Party, which provided uninterrupted support and funding for the war.

Today, it is the most pro-war party, aligned with the opposition to Trump by the likes of John Bolton, Lindsey Graham and Bush.

Trump’s admission about the criminality of the Iraq war only confirms what the World Socialist Web Site stated from its very outset.

…

By Bill Van Auken

This article was originally published by “WSWS“

The 21st Century

FacebookTwitterSina WeiboVKEmailPrintFriendlyShare