Requesting US Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, UC Berkeley and Cal State East Bay’s Political Science Chairs: either affirm or refute that ongoing US armed attacks are illegal Wars of Aggression

I wrote that I’m working with interested teachers to request our school district remove military recruitment because ongoing US armed attacks are illegal Wars of Aggression. Our group is now requesting US Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, UC Berkeley and Cal State East Bay’s Political Science Chairs to either affirm or refute this factual claim.

Following is what we sent these groups. I’ll continue updating you.

Our message:

I write as Chair of a committee for real-world solutions at Hayward HS, and published writer with ~50 million pageviews in politics and economics.

We're contacting you to request official explanation of how current US armed attacks are lawful.

We're also contacting UC Berkeley's Political Science Chair (or other expert) for either affirmation or refutation of the claim that current US armed attacks are unlawful Wars of Aggression, CSUEB's Political Science Chair, and the four major branches of US military: Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines. We will share these responses with students, parents, teachers/admin, and public, so please be proud of your response as clearly addressing war law such as "War law states (a, b, c) so the wars are legal/illegal because (d, e, f)." 

Below is a 1-page summary of this published paper.

US illegal Wars of Aggression: exercise basic education to stop military recruitment of HUSD students for ongoing War Crimes

War law is crystal-clear in letter and intent: two world wars that killed ~20 million then ~60 million ended with treaties expressly forbidding military armed attacks unless under attack by a foreign government (or imminent threat), or authorized by the UN Security Council. The two treaties requiring that limit (Kellogg-Briand and UN Charter) are taught in every high school World and US History class. The definition of a treaty under Article 6 of the US Constitution is "supreme Law of the Land," so when a US President signs with 2/3rds ratification of the Senate, US political and military leadership are Oath-bound to defend and protect the promised peace. War law is similar to limits of force for civilians walking the streets: exercise all self-defense if needed, but going to someone’s house to attack them is a crime, not “pre-emptive self-defense.”

The above summary of war law is published research by The Claremont Colleges. We scholars for peace and justice have found zero refutation of such factual claims, with teachers and public ignorant of war law.

We respectfully remind colleagues that all of us signed an Oath to support and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, as a condition of our employment. We request your actions in good-faith honor of this Oath, our academic professionalism to say and do something about the greatest cost connected to our constant struggle for school funding, and in ethical response for the greatest human rescue mission in Earth history under renewed threat of a third world war with nuclear weapons capable of destroying all life on Earth. 

We assert that recognizing and refusing illegal Wars of Aggression is a basic application of a high school education, and required of professional educators responsible for the education and safety of the children at our schools. Refusing our children to be recruited for ongoing War Crimes is a professional duty to prevent an obvious and known harm to our children, not an option. We hope such a basic and easy choice is clear to you. 

If you have a justification to support illegal US Wars of Aggression started with lies known to be lies as they were told (see part 2), then we’d like to hear it.