Saturday, September 6, 2014



File:Brandeisl.jpg Updated 9/22/2015
INTRODUCING OUR NEW ( TO US ANYWAY, HE HAS ACTUALLY BEEN AROUND THE BLOCK A FEW TIMES) LEGAL CORRESPONDENT, LOUIS BRANDEIS, FORMER ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT FROM 1916 to 1939.  He has actually been dead for quite a while but recently Namazu made a trip up to DC while visiting with his cousin Jack in and around Annapolis. Both Namazu and Jack had assumed their human forms when they bumped into the ghost of Brandeis on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court more in our Admiralty law section:


 I've been following with alarm the brutal rise of the so called "Islamic State" and if I was still able to be politically active I would surely join those of you advocating against this brutal networked organization and the steady creep of Sharia law into the legal systems of Great Britain and the United States. I would also be firmly against the observable selective and convoluted application of the suppression of free speech observable right now in both Great Britain and the United States. It appears the enforcers of the latest bain to freedom, political correctness, are ready to use the full   power of the central governments to suppress any and every expression of opinion on Islam that is not complimentary. Meanwhile those charged with maintaining the peace and protecting the security of the nation allow every manner of incitement and sedition to be pronounced in the streets of the Kingdom and the Republic by any and all Islamic demonstrators and speakers, even while speaking under the very flag of the claimed "state" that has so recently and clearly declared war on both nations. Adding to the confusion is the obvious bias of  much of the media towards what they perceive as "multi culturalism" and the adversarial slant of their language to avoid accusing any element of Islam with crimes against humanity. "Terrorists" in journalistic language become "fighters". "Murders" become "executions". The media appears to be doing everything possible to avoid raising the alarm that should be running throughout Western Civilization that the lull in the 1400 year continuous history of Islamic aggression against the West and India that started in 1922 in fact, ended well before 1998. Murder and mayhem in the name of Islam is again on the march. ( See TRANSITION OF ISIS TO IS IS NOTHING NEW..)

 Advocates for the suppression of Muslim incitement to violence and insurrection, and those who abhor the beheadings, crucifictions, mass machine gunning, baby killings, and  stonings by the ISIS demonic thugs are  using the new "social media" to protest, including protest of  U.S. State Department language that appears to suppress the brutal nature of the ISIS actions. In combatting the use of skillful propaganda I advise first picking your battles carefully, then learning and using the excruciatingly correct legal language.  For example a current complaint by the advocates for suppressing the murderous Islamic thugs is that "the State Department (U.S.) refuses to call ISIS executions 'acts of war'. This is a war of words with all "shots" misdirected.

  In accordance with both traditional and codified International Law an "act of war" may or may not be a "crime" that may carry individual liability. For example the attack on Pearl Harbor was an "act of war", its only illegality was that the Japanese attacked before the declaration of war was delivered due to an inadvertent breakdown in diplomatic / naval communications. None of the plane pilots or ship's crew participating in this "act of war" committed a "war crime". The so called "executions"by the so called "Islamic State" are legally "crimes against humanity"  in the aggregate. individually they are murder. Many ISIS terrorists (not "fighters" ) are"mass murderers". So as advocates for freedom and justice we all know that the intent of the present administration's State Department is to white wash and prepare the way for Islamic conquest but this was an a opportunity lost. Refusal to call these atrocities "acts of war" isn't the problem. If the State Department did so label these atrocities "acts of war" they would be putting them in a category of acts which may be legally defensible. Demand instead that the State Department refer to  these acts in globo as "Crimes against humanity" and when referring to specific acts as "atrocities". What specific acts, against specific citizens such as the be-headings of the two American journalists, which were preceded by direct social media threats against the United states as a nation and individual Americans, should be referred to as "symbolic declarations of war", "brutal murder", atrocities" . 

 The UN charter prohibits war, except defensive war among its signatories (it also prohibits slavery but Islamic General Assembly members hold about 27 million in virtual slavery) the so called "Islamic State" has made a de facto declaration of war upon the United States, Britain, and the EU member states. Traditional and codified International law defines "war" as a legal condition of conflict including armed conflict between two states. It is up to the Congress and Parliament to decide whether or not the de facto declaration of war by the Islamic State is to be replied to by a formal declaration of "war" . Because the Islamic State claims statehood and occupies and controls identifiable territory such a declaration would be legal. It would also be morally justified and is probably militarily necessary. Such a declaration would change the permissible rules of engagement in the field of battle. After a declaration of "war" it is legal to ambush, trap, deceive, and destroy enemy forces found anywhere except within neutral nations, or in the act of surrendering , or found in a condition of inability to resist such as sailors after the sinking of enemy ships or air crewmen evacuating a stricken air craft. Most importantly direct attack on the enemy's war making capacity  and infrastructure is allowed. You could for example bomb the oil fields controlled by the Islamic State. On the home front much of the incitement and seditious activities of the resident Muslim population not sanctioned due to politically correct enforcement policy would become legally treason. President Obama's continued friendly contacts with the ISIS collaborative Muslim Brotherhood (collaborative with IS)  via MB affiliate CIAR would justify impeachment for treason. It is important at this stage that the advocates for direct and immediate suppression of the monstrous evil of Islamofascism learn and use the correct legal language of international law in combating the the pro Islamofascism propaganda coming from the media, domestic Islamic community, and the present governments . By doing so not only is argument strengthened but you lay the ground work for the future successful litigations to end selective enforcement policies on sedition and avoid sustainable reverse incitement charges , something that the U.S. Justice Department is already threatening non Muslims who express critical opinions of Islam with. America, Britain you are surrounded by the same braying jackals who have hounded Christians, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhist for 1400 years and a pack of traitors in your government and media. Use litigation and skillful litigation mindful advocacy to get the resistance going and eventually bring the traitors to freedom to justice. Excruciating correct legal language can be a powerful weapon when confronted with liars. 

FOR A SHORT COURSE IN THE BASIC PRINCIPLE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT SEE: The American Admiralty Bureau's Guide To The Enduring Principles  Of Maritime International Law in our




No comments:

Post a Comment