Accountability, Disclosure, and Deterrence

of Government Criminality -

A Demand for the Equal and Principled Application of Laws

Forbidding War Crimes and Other Heinous Abuses of Power

We, the undersigned, submit the following urgent plea to President Obama; U.S.
Attorney General Eric Holder; the United States Congress; the United Nations; all other
international bodies committed to the rule of law and ending aggressive wars, war crimes,
and crimes against humanity; and the nations of the world:

We begin with these inquiries:

Should the law be applied unequally, or should it apply to every person and every
nation in equal measure?

Should nations live up to the solemn promises they and other nations have made
to each other, particularly with respect to the protection of human rights and the
deterrence of human rights abuses?

The honest responses to those vital questions Abed Hamed Mowhoush had
determine the genuineness of any claim that a nation or the walked into a military base in Qaim,
Iraq, hoping to speak with US
international community abides by the rule of law and commanders to obtain the release of
commits to the protection of human rights. his sons. He was detained and
tortured.

Either the law – justly formulated and applied –
governs, or tyranny prevails.
This is a pivotal moment in history to determine
which it will be.
His autopsy reflected that he died 16
days later of “asphyxia due to
smothering and chest compression,”
and that his body showed “evidence
of blunt force trauma to the chest
and legs.” He had massive bruising
and five broken ribs.

How did it happen? Chief Warrant

Will the law be disregarded for powerful people and Officer Lewis Welshofter, who had
received no guidance about how to
powerful nations while applied against others? interrogate detainees, called in a
CIA-sponsored team of
paramilitaries who beat Mowhoush
Is the law to be applied only against the vanquished with sledgehammer handles, their
or is the earnest promise made at the Nuremberg Tribunal of fists, and a rubber hose.
Mowhoush‟s hands were bound and
universal application of the law to be honored? he was struck repeatedly on his
elbows. Finally, Welshofer and the
team wrapped Mowhoush in
Shall we allow politicians to ignore and demean electrical cord and shoved him
well-established law, including U.S. domestic legislation head-first into a sleeping bag.
Welshofer sat on Mowhoush‟s chest
such as the War Crimes Act of 1995 and the Federal Torture and blocked his nose and mouth.
Act; international treaties to which the U.S. is a party such Mowhoush suffocated to death.
as the Kellogg-Briand Pact, the United Nations Charter, the
Geneva Conventions, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment (“Convention Against Torture”); and customary international law forbidding
aggressive war and war crimes such as kidnappings and torture?

“Some may argue that we would Perhaps most importantly: Will we, the people of
be more effective if we sanctioned
torture or other expedient the U.S. and people of good will around the world,
methods to obtain information permit crimes against peace and war crimes to be
from the enemy. They would be ignored so that, instead of deterrence of future similar
wrong. Beyond the basic fact that
such actions are illegal, history outrages, the lesson learned for those in positions of
shows that they also are power in the future will be that such crimes can be
frequently neither useful nor committed with impunity?
necessary.”
Commanding General
David H. Petraeus, United The Nuremberg Tribunal Charter affirmed the
States Army principled application of the rule of law. It made clear
that the powerful, or previously powerful, would be held
to the same standards as anyone else, and that the violations of solemn legal prohibitions
would not be excused because of claims that the
perpetrators were following orders.1 Order signed by President Bush on February 7,
2002: “I accept the legal conclusion of the
Department of Justice and determine that none of
Central to any system of justice, from the the provisions of Geneva apply to our conflict with
al-Qaida in Afghanistan or elsewhere throughout
Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals to domestic civil the world . . . [C]ommon Article 3 of Geneva does
and criminal law, is the universal principle that not apply to either al-Qaida or Taliban detainees . .
.”
personal accountability is essential to the rule of
law. Four years later, the Supreme Court repudiated the
President‟s claim that the minimal standard of
Common Article 3 could be ignored. Hamdan v.
Following World War II, leaders in national Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006).
governments and international bodies did not seek “The President‟s memo . . . violated almost every
to avoid the application of the most fundamental existing legal guarantee of humane treatment in
wartime and replaced them with a virtual invitation
legal principles forbidding aggressive war, war to engage in coercive interrogations. We would
crimes, and crimes against humanity with the have seen no rapid deterioration in detainee
wretched excuse that “we need to look forward, as treatment standards and no spread of torture
without President Bush‟s February 2002 decision
opposed to looking backwards,” as President to reject the checks imposed by Congress when it
adopted the Geneva Conventions into U.S. law.”
Obama has said in trying to explain why war
criminals acting in the name of the U.S. are not to Frederick A.O. Schwarz Jr. and Aziz Z. Huq,
be held accountable.2 Those post-World War II Unchecked and Unbalanced (The New Press
2007), p.76.

1
Similarly, in a televised message on March 17, 2003 to Iraqi military and civilian personnel just before
ordering an illegal war of aggression against Iraq, President George W. Bush stated: “War crimes will be
prosecuted, war criminals will be punished and it will be no defense to say, „I was just following orders.‟”
2
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton urged the continuation of trials against former members of the
Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, saying that “a country that is able to confront its past is a country that can
overcome it.” (Seth Mydans, “In Cambodia, Clinton Advocates Khmer Rouge Trials,” New York Times,
November 1, 2010.) When asked if he were satisfied with the resolution of past human rights abuses in
Indonesia, President Obama urged that investigations into the abuses continue, saying: “We have to
acknowledge that those past human rights abuses existed. We can‟t go forward without looking backwards
. . . .”
leaders, intent on holding war criminals accountable, did not say, as U.S. Attorney
General Eric Holder has, that so long as government agents have acted “in good faith”
and consistently with legal advice provided to them by government lawyers, they may
escape responsibility for unlawfully torturing human beings.3

“We also have to work sort
of the dark side, if you will.
. . . [I]t’s going to be vital
for us to use any means at
our disposal, basically, to
achieve our objective . . . It
is a mean, nasty,
dangerous, dirty business
out there, and we have to
operate in that arena.”
Vice-President Dick Cheney,
September 16, 2001 on “Meet
the Press”
Rather, the international community was unified in
taking a principled stand for the rule of law, personal
accountability, and vindication of principles of international
law.
Justice Robert Jackson, the U.S. Chief Prosecutor at
Nuremberg, emphasized the universality of the solemn laws
against aggressive war, war crimes, and crimes against
humanity, noting that they must apply to all nations and to all
people alike, then and in the future:

We must never forget that the record on which we judge these

defendants today 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.
* * *
[L]et me make clear that while this law is first applied against German
aggressors, the law includes, and if it is to serve a useful purpose it must condemn
aggression by any other nations, including those which sit here now in judgment.4

Those who have signed this plea call upon “They prepared me for interrogations by
President Obama and his administration, including putting electric shocks through my feet.
For hours on end they would hang me up
U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., and upon by my hands, which were bound behind
the United States Congress, to take every necessary my back. . . A doctor looked in to see if
measure to comply with the vital commitments by the you were still alive . . .”
United States to the international community, to Murat Kurnaz, describing his
restore the rule of law, and to repair the constitutional treatment at a US prison in
Kandahar, Afghanistan. He spent
system of checks and balances, through: five years in Guantánamo then was
released in 2006 without any
charges ever being filed.

3
Reminiscent of the excuse by some Nuremberg defendants that they were just following orders, Attorney
General Holder has announced that the “Department of Justice will not prosecute anyone who acted in
good faith and within the scope of the legal guidance given by the Office of Legal Counsel regarding the
interrogation of detainees.” Attorney General Eric Holder Regarding a Preliminary Review into the
Interrogation of Certain Detainees (August 24, 2009). This appears to be the first time war criminals have
been given a free pass by a U.S. Attorney General on account of baseless “legal guidance” by lawyers who
were simply providing cover for the commission of blatantly illegal, heinous acts against detainees in U.S.
custody.
4
Justice Robert H. Jackson‟s Opening Statement for the Prosecution, Nuremberg Tribunal (November 21,
1945).
  criminal prosecutions5 and the allowance of
civil actions6 for illegally kidnapping,
disappearing, indefinitely detaining without
charges, and torturing people; depriving
detainees of their due process and habeas
corpus rights; and engaging in and
authorizing felonious warrantless electronic
surveillance of U.S. citizens‟
communications;
 the appointment by Congress of a select
committee or independent commission to
conduct thorough and transparent
investigations and public disclosures with
regard to (1) the crime of aggressive war in
connection with the invasion and occupation
of Iraq; and (2) conduct proscribed by the
Constitution, domestic legislation, treaty
commitments, and customary international
law in connection with kidnappings,
disappearances, torture, indefinite detentions,
The [1975-76 Church Senate Select]
Committee found that all too often, executive
branch actions – taken in the name of
nebulous concepts like “national security,” or
“subversion,” shielded by secrecy, and
without the guidance of clear laws – were not
“governed and controlled in accord with the
fundamental principles of our constitutional
system of government.” As a result, the
Committee‟s report concluded, America‟s
secret government did far too many “illegal,
improper or unethical” deeds that did not
reflect “the ideals which have given the
people of this country and of the world hope
for a better, fuller, fairer life.”
Frederick A.O. Schwarz Jr. and Aziz Z. Huq,
Unchecked and Unbalanced (The New Press
2007), p.23.
“The Select Senate Committee headed by
Frank Church found, no mailbox, no college
campus, no television had been safe. The
Church Committee led Congress to reject
presidential claims of 'inherent authority' and
restore some checks and balances ….”
Bill Moyers, “The Path to Power,” Bill
Moyers Journal, October 26, 2007

5
President Reagan praised the ratification by the United States of the Convention Against Torture, noting
that it “marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against
torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment.” He stressed the importance of prosecuting those who
are responsible for torture, saying: “The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for
international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called „universal
jurisdiction.‟ Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to
extradite them to other countries for prosecution. . . . By giving its advice and consent to ratification of this
Convention, the Senate of the United States will demonstrate unequivocally our desire to bring an end to
the abhorrent practice of torture.” President Ronald Reagan, Message to the Senate, May 20, 1988.

6
The Convention Against Torture provides as follows: “Each State Party shall ensure in its legal system
that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress and has an enforceable right to fair and adequate
compensation, including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible.” Part I, Article 14, paragraph 1.
The United States government has represented to the United Nations Committee Against Torture that a
broad range of civil remedies is available in the U.S. for victims of torture, including “suing federal
officials directly under provisions of the United States Constitution for „constitutional torts‟, see Bivens v.
Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) . . .” Report of United States of America to Committee
Against Torture (October 15, 1999), page 14. However, when victims of torture have sued in U.S. federal
courts, their claims have been dismissed without any determination on the merits and without any redress –
without any justice – whatsoever. In each case, the George W. Bush or the Obama administration has
argued that the cases cannot proceed, and therefore the torture victims shall have no remedy, because to
proceed with the litigation would require the disclosure of unidentified “state secrets.” El-Masri v. Tenet,
437 F. Supp. 2d 530 (ED Va 2006), aff’d., 479 F.3d 296 (4th Cir. 2007), cert. denied 552 U.S. 947 (2007);
Arar v. Ashcroft, 585 F.3d 559 (2d Cir. 2009) (en banc), cert. denied 130 S.Ct. 3409 (2010); Mohamed v.
Jeppesen Dataplan Inc., 614 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2010). In Arar, the Obama administration argued, and the
court agreed, that the plaintiff could not pursue a Bivens-type constitutional tort claim – one of the remedies
the U.S. assured the U.N. Committee Against Torture was available for torture victims.
 denials of due process and
habeas corpus rights, and
illegal surveillance;7
 a strict limitation on the
application of the state secrets
doctrine, which has been
utilized by the George W.
Bush and Obama
administrations to remove the
courts as a check on abuses of
power and illegal activity by
members of the executive
branch;
 a limitation on signing
statements and legislation
forbidding the reliance on a
signing statement as a defense
for the violation of any law or
a determination concerning
legislative intent with respect
to the legislation; and
Major General Antonio M. Taguba prepared a report, ordered by
Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the senior U.S. military official in Iraq
in 2004, about abuses at the Abu Ghraib Prison, operated by the
United States, in Baghdad. He found many incidents of “sadistic,
blatant, and wanton criminal abuses were inflicted on several
detainees.” He described some of the acts of abuse:
 Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and
perhaps a broom stick
 Using military dogs to frighten and intimidate
detainees with threats of attack and biting a detainee
 Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric
liquid on detainees
 Pouring cold water on naked detainees
 Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair
 Threatening male detainees with rape
 Videotaping and photographing naked male and
female detainees
 Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually
explicit positions for photographing
 Forcing naked male detainees to wear women‟s
underwear
 Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate
themselves while being photographed and videotaped
 Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then
jumping on them
 Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee‟s
neck and having a female soldier pose for a
photograph
 Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping
them naked for several days at a time

7
Following disclosures of appalling abuses of detainees by U.S. agents at Abu Ghraib, President George
W. Bush stated that, in contrast to a dictatorship, a democracy investigates and discloses serious abuses,
then requires perpetrators to be accountable for their crimes:

We‟re an open society. We‟re a society that is willing to investigate, fully investigate in this case,
what took place in that prison. That stands in stark contrast to life under Saddam Hussein . . .
There were no investigations about mistreatment of people. There will be investigations. People
will be brought to justice. . . . [I]n our system of law, it‟s essential that those criminal charges go
forward without prejudice. . . . And we want to know the truth. . . . We have nothing to hide. We
believe in transparency, because we‟re a free society. That‟s what free societies do. They – if
there‟s a problem, they address those problems in a forthright, up-front manner. . . . [P]eople will
be held to account. That‟s what the process does. That‟s what we do in America. We fully
investigate; we let everybody see the results of the investigation; and then people will be held to
account. . . . [T]here will be a full investigation, and justice will be served. And we will do to
ourselves what we expect of others.
President George W. Bush, Interview by Alhurra Television, May 5, 2004.

[I]n a democracy . . . there will be a full investigation. . . . [P]eople want to know the truth. That
stands in contrast to dictatorships. A dictator wouldn‟t be answering questions about this. A
dictator wouldn‟t be saying that the system will be investigated and the world will see the results
of the investigation.
President George W. Bush, Interview by Al-Arabiya Television, May 5, 2004.

The very different accounts of what did and did not happen (compare Marc Thiessen, Courting Disaster –
How the C.I.A. Kept America Safe and How Barack Obama Is Inviting the Next Attack (Regnery, 2010),
with Jane Mayer, “Counterfactual – A curious history of the C.I.A.‟s secret interrogation program,” The
New Yorker, March 29, 2010) make clear the historical importance of undertaking a full investigation and
disclosing the truth so the historical record of these events is not left to those who have reason to mislead.
 Some detainees have been water-
 amendment by Congress of the War Powers Act,
boarded, a form of torture in which the making it clear that, consistent with the War
person being tortured is immobilized on Clause of the Constitution, only with the express
his or her back, with water poured over
the face and into the breathing passages. non-delegable authorization of Congress can the
The torture victim experiences U.S. military be committed to armed conflict,
drowning and is made to believe that
death is imminent. One detainee was except in cases of actual or imminent invasion of
waterboarded 183 times. the United States.
Waterboarding poses risks of long-term
physical injury, including damage to the
lungs, brain damage from oxygen In the absence of the above measures being
deprivation, and death. Horrendous
psychological effects can be lasting. undertaken by the Obama administration and the U.S.
Waterboarding is a technique utilized Congress, the signatories to this plea urge the United
during the Inquisition, by Japanese Nations and its relevant committees, as well as other
troops and officers of the Gestapo
during World War II, and by the Khmer international bodies and individual nations that support
Rouge in Cambodia. Until recently, the the rule of law, personal accountability, and adherence
U.S. government has never permitted
waterboarding and, in fact, has to the duty of party states to comply with their treaty
prosecuted others as war criminals for commitments, to thoroughly investigate and disclose,
engaging in the practice.
and in appropriate cases undertake prosecutions for,
Waterboarding was deemed illegal by
U.S. generals during the Vietnam War. violations by U.S. officials and agents, and those
One US soldier who was photographed working in concert with them, in connection with the
waterboarding a prisoner of war was
court-martialled and discharged from commission of aggressive war and war crimes,
the army. including kidnappings, disappearances, and torture.
For waterboarding a suspected
Philippine insurgent after the Spanish
American War of 1898, Major Edwin
Just as it is not a matter of discretion, but of
Glenn was court-martialed and absolute legal obligation, for the United States to
sentenced to 10 years hard labor.
investigate every case of suspected torture and to
Glenn argued that such torture was prosecute those who have ordered, helped facilitate, or
necessitated by the circumstances and
that the military should not be limited in perpetrated torture, so too are all other State Parties to
the use of waterboarding. The judge the Convention Against Torture obligated to exercise the
advocate general at Glenn‟s court-
martial rejected that defense, saying that universal jurisdiction provided by that Convention8 with
no modern nation could allow such respect to any suspected offenders present in any
torture, “in violation of the rules of
civilized war.” territory under their jurisdiction. As President Reagan
said when addressing the United States Senate
concerning its ratification of the Convention Against
Torture, “Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its
territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.”9 We appeal to all
nations that have ratified the Convention Against Torture to reaffirm the rule of law by
investigating all claims of torture and taking all reasonable steps to prosecute, and to

8
The Convention Against Torture, Part I, Article 5, paragraph 2, provides as follows: “Each State Party
shall likewise take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over such offenses in
cases where the alleged offender is present in any territory under its jurisdiction and it does not extradite
him pursuant to article 8 to any of the States mentioned in paragraph I of this article.”
9
President Ronald Reagan, Message to the Senate, May 20, 1988.
provide for civil remedies against, those present in any territory under their jurisdiction
who have participated or been complicit in torture.10

The undersigned seek these measures to be taken not out of hostility toward, but
out of deep concern for, the United States and the core principles underlying its founding,
its Constitution, and its most fundamental commitments to the international community.

The United States government was carefully structured to provide a separation of

power among the three branches of government to avoid tyranny. Central to that
protection is a system of checks and balances, pursuant to which, when a challenge is
raised, the courts are to determine if executive branch
officials have acted contrary to law.
Subversive to that system, Presidents George W.
Bush and Obama have, through the assertion of the state
secrets doctrine and the political question doctrine,
removed the courts as a check on illegal executive branch
actions. The system of checks and balances has been
emasculated in cases challenging the violation of the War
Clause of the Constitution, felonious surveillance of U.S.
citizens‟ communications, and illegal torture.
The foundations of the U.S. republic are
crumbling, with a complicit Congress and a judiciary that
is an enabler of, rather than a check against, executive
branch abuses.
As a matter of official policy since the founding of
the U.S. until recently, the U.S. absolutely prohibited
torture. George Washington was committed to winning
the Revolutionary War consistently with high moral
values, including a prohibition against torture, even when
According to Army documents, two
prisoners killed at Bagram Air Base in
December 2002 had been chained to the
ceiling, kicked, and beaten over a period
of several days. One U.S. soldier
admitted striking the prisoner thirty-seven
times, “destroying his leg muscle tissue
with repeated unlawful knee strikes.”
Three other interrogators participated in
the assault on these prisoners with “kicks
to the groin and leg, shoving or slamming
him into walls/table, forcing the detainee
to maintain painful, contorted body
positions during interview and forcing
water into his mouth until he could not
breathe.” One of these two prisoners had
been captured by Afghan militiamen, who
stopped him driving a vehicle at a
checkpoint near Khost, Afghanistan.
They turned him and his three passengers
over to the United States. The passengers
were sent to Guantánamo, where they
were held for more than a year before
being released without charges. But the
driver remained in Afghanistan, where he
was beaten so severely that, even if he had
survived, doctors determined he would
have lost both his legs. Yet by the time
the interrogators were finished, most of
them “were convinced that the detainee
was innocent.”

the British were committing atrocities against colonial Joseph Margulies, Guantánamo and the
Abuse of Presidential Power (Simon &
soldiers and civilians. During the Civil War, the Union Schuster 2006), p. 137.
army abided by the Lieber Code, prohibiting the
intentional infliction of any suffering on captured soldiers.
General Eisenhower guaranteed exemplary treatment to German POWs during World
War II, and the U.S. applied the Geneva Convention protections against torture during the
Korean War.

10
Justifying the jurisdiction of U.S. courts in tort actions against persons present in the United States who
engaged in torture elsewhere, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit noted: “The
torturer has become like the pirate and slave trader before him hostis humani generis, an enemy of all
mankind.” Filártiga v. Peña-Irala, 630 F. 2d 876, 890 (2d Cir. 1980). The court affirmed the absolute
prohibition against torture under customary international law.
 The international community, including the U.S.,
[M]any independent experts who have
top security clearances, and who have has outlawed torture in the Geneva Conventions, the
had access to the C.I.A.‟s records, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and
have denounced the agency‟s
[interrogation] tactics. Among the the Convention Against Torture. Customary international
critics are Robert Mueller, the director law also guarantees freedom from torture.11 Torture is a
of the F.B.I., and four chairmen of the
Senate Intelligence Committee. Last war crime under international law and under U.S.
year, President Obama asked Michael domestic law.
Hayden, the C.I.A. director, to give a
classified briefing on the program to
three intelligence experts: Chuck We call upon the United States government and
Hagel, the former Republican senator
from Nebraska; Jeffrey Smith, a the international community to take a principled stand by
former general counsel to the C.I.A.;
holding those responsible for torture fully accountable
and David Boren, the retired
Democratic senator from Oklahoma. under the law. We also call for a full investigation and
The three men were left unswayed. disclosure to people throughout the world concerning the
Boren has said that, after the briefing,
he “wanted to take a bath.” In an e-commission of the crimes of aggressive war (that is, the
mail [to Jane Mayer], he wrote, “I left
invasion and occupation of a nation other than in self-
the briefing by General Hayden
completely unconvinced that the use defense)12 and war crimes. If the US is permitted to
of torture is an effective means of escape even an inquiry and disclosure of – and perhaps
interrogation. . . . Those who are
being tortured will say anything.” sanctions for – its unlawful conduct under the United
Jane Mayer, “Counterfactual – A Nations Charter, other commitments undertaken through
curious history of the C.I.A.‟s secret treaties ratified by the United States, and customary
interrogation program,” The New
Yorker, March 29, 2010. international law of the sort relied upon in prosecutions at
the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals, the entire
international system established following World War II
to prevent crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity would be

11
“[A]lthough there is no universal agreement as to the precise extent of the „human rights and
fundamental freedoms‟ guaranteed to all by the [United Nations] Charter, there is at present no dissent from
the view that the guaranties include, at a bare minimum, the right to be free from torture. This prohibition
has become part of customary international law, as evidenced and defined by the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, . . . which states, in the plainest of terms, „no one shall be subjected to torture.‟” Filártiga v.
Peña-Irala, 630 F. 2d 876, 882 (2d Cir. 1980).
12
Justice Robert H. Jackson addressed the crime of aggression at the Nuremberg Tribunal as follows:

I suggest that an “aggressor” is generally held to be that state which is the first to commit any of
the following actions: (1) Declaration of war upon another state; (2) Invasion by its armed forces,
with or without a declaration of war, of the territory of another state; (3) Attack by its land, naval,
or air forces, with or without a declaration of war, on the territory, vessels, or air forces, with or
without a declaration of war, on the territory, vessels or aircraft of another state . . . And I further
suggest that it is the general view that no political military, economic, or other considerations shall
serve as an excuse or justification for such actions; but exercise of the right of legitimate self-
defense, that is to say, resistance to an act of aggression, or action to assist a state which has been
subjected to aggression, shall not constitute a war of aggression. . . . Our position is that whatever
grievances a nation may have, however objectionable it finds the status quo, aggressive warfare is
an illegal means for settling those grievances or for altering those conditions.”

The United Nations Charter prohibits wars of aggression, making it clear that, except when a nation is
under attack or threat of imminent attack, and except when the UN Security Council determines that all
nonmilitary and peaceful options have been fully exhausted, no member of the UN may use military force
against another country. United Nations Charter, Chapter I, Article 1 para. 1, Article 2, paragraphs 3-4.
severely undermined. That in turn would make our world a much less safe, less humane
place, now and far into the future.

The United States cannot expect other nations to refrain from aggressive war and
war crimes while the U.S. itself engages, and has engaged, in those crimes with impunity.

The United States government and many of its political leaders appear to be
pursuing the course of a self-proclaimed exceptionalism that would permit the U.S., its
officials, and its agents to avoid any consequences for violating the solemn laws against
aggressive war, war crimes, and crimes against humanity to which the U.S. has
committed, and which it expects to be applied to other nations.13 We hereby urge the
United States and the world community to take another course, demanding that the laws
be applied to all nations alike and that violations of those laws shall carry consequences
of such severity for all violators, whether individuals or nations, that similar conduct in
the future will be effectively deterred.

We join with people throughout the world in urging the U.S. government at this
historic moment to abandon the arrogance of holding itself and its agents above the well-
established law and to embrace and restore the rule of law, the separation of powers, and
a renewed respect for the moral, political, and legal values that compel accountability by
all who violate the U.S. Constitution, domestic law, treaty commitments, and customary
international law.

If the United States government continues in its obstinacy to ignore and violate
the law and elude or deny governmental and personal accountability for gross breaches
of the Constitution, domestic law, treaty obligations, and customary international law,
then we call upon the United Nations, other international bodies, and the world‟s nations
to take every measure reasonable and necessary to make it clear to all the world‟s people
that no person or nation is above the law and that the international community will not
tolerate the commission of aggressive war, war crimes, or other breaches of fundamental
legal and moral commitments with impunity.

Respectfully,

13
The failure by the U.S. to prosecute those who authorized and engaged in torture is itself a violation of
the Convention Against Torture. Under that treaty, a decision as to whether one should be prosecuted for
torture shall be made “in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offence of a serious nature under
the law of that State.” Convention Against Torture, Part I, Article 7, paragraph 2.