When The World Outlawed War

22 Dec

"Treat'em Rough^ Join The Tanks. United S...

Image via Wikipedia

Interesting.  When the World Outlawed War is a book by David Swanson.  That book explains that in A.D. 1928, most of the nations of the world signed a treaty (the Kellog-Briand Pact) to “outlaw” war.   This treaty was signed by the U.S. and is still valid and therefore part of the “supreme law of the land” (Article 6 Section, The Constitution of the United States).    Under this treaty all war is a crime.

World War II violated this treaty, and after that war, there were efforts to try Nazi “war criminals” based on the Kellog-Briand treaty that declared war to be a crime.

I wonder if modern “wars” (as in Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, etc.) are deemed to be “police actions” to avoid criminal liability under Kellog-Briand.  Perhaps the reason that Congress will no longer declare war and/or has passed power to the President to unilaterally initiate “war” (under some other definition) is that “war” is now a crime.

Are the “wars” on Drugs and Poverty, really “wars”?  If so, could they be challenged as “crimes”?  Probably not.  I expect those “wars” are euphemisms rather than objective descriptions.  Probably.

But what about the Trading With the Enemy Act which has allegedly recognized the people of the United States as “enemies”?   What about “Emergency War Powers Acts” and/or the Patriot Act?  Insofar as any such act seemingly authorizes a “war,” could those acts be challenged as crimes?   Or do these acts attempt to sanitize and authorize organized violence without admitting to have expressly engaged in the (now criminal) act of “war”?

video   00:10:05!

The actual treaty is fairly short and seemingly simple.  You can see a copy at

Note that this treaty references the “President of the United States of America” and the “Government of the United States of America“.  This treaty was not ratified by the government of the United States; it was ratified by the government of “the United States of America” which I presume to include the States of the Union styled “The United States of America” in the Articles of Confederation.   If my analysis is correct, this treaty would apply within the States of the Union, but might not apply in the territories and/or territorial “states” of the United States.

The United States of America appears to be bound by this treaty.  But, apparently, the “United States” is not.


Posted by on December 22, 2011 in Video, War


Tags: , , , ,

5 responses to “When The World Outlawed War

  1. Hognutz

    December 22, 2011 at 5:08 PM

    You make some good points Sir.

    • Adask

      December 22, 2011 at 5:26 PM

      Thanks. It’s an odd little story. Likely to be ignored or overlooked by most. But I suspect there may be some serious implications and hidden powers in the Kellog-Briand Treaty.

  2. Ummer

    December 23, 2011 at 4:46 AM

    Outlawing war is like outlawing a right given by God.

    My assumption is that the outlawing was outlawing a right of God given to mankind, to protect and develop themselves. Sugar coating world peace for one world government.

    Almost like making gun duels illegal, and then guns illegal. So that no one else has guns other than those ho have an influence over getting guns. Classic case of “how dare you, only we have the right to do that”.

    In fact one could reason that such a anti-war legislation helped create a supply shortage in regards to war tech apart from the localized points, and when you cut off supply to some parts, demand eventually increases. Sounds like a stock market dump and pump.

    I think you yourself would have to look at the legislation and focus on what it at least violated. I’m reminded here of Isaiah 2:3-4, where we learn that when the law of God is being met, theres no need to fight. Jesus did not forbid war when he mentioned Matthew 5:38-45 as that was about actions between individuals. Were nations turned into individuals in that anti-war legislation? In Mark 13:7-8 we learn that Jesus says that there will be wars till this end time, so the believer would never be deceived against war occurring, though the first thing to die in war is the truth. That legislation may have been an act of war, or at least an act within a war against the people and nations.

    Those labels of wars, I don’t see them as euphemisms, but in reality fictional euphemisms with the actual intent of making it known to us that there is a war occurring. A major one, far larger than what we are used to… so big is it, like a person who is so fat, they’re thin air. That pact may have just been a tool of covert disguising,

  3. Carlos W.

    December 30, 2011 at 7:49 PM

    How about just “Outlawing False Flag Orchestrations”?? In the past 100+ years, “ALL of America’s Major Wars, were created via the False Flag Op”! That means, that all the soldiers who “dropped every thing the loved & cherished to fight these false flag wars, are essentially murderers”.

    Sorry, but it’s true! Because “no one actually attacked our country, as the military knew the Japanese were coming”, long before they arrived. And, the state of Hawaii, “is not even a legal property of the U. S. of A…..!” So, do you beLIEve that the twin towers burnt down, because of ”burning rugs & jet fuel”?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s