Are Warhawks Immoral?

 I’m a dedicated combat veteran peacenik. 

In 1984, the U.N. General Assembly solemnly proclaimed that “the peoples of our planet have a sacred right to peace” and that “that the preservation of the right of peoples to peace and the promotion of its implementation constitute a fundamental obligation of each State.” Declaration on the Right to Peace, UNGA 39/11 (12 November 1984).

Likewise, the U.N. Charter, which under our constitution’s supremacy clause is the law of this land, commands that "[a]ll Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." The only exceptions are self-defense or with the approval of the U.N. Security Council.

Isn’t it about time that we begin branding the war hawks among us as immoral?

We need only look at the case of Juluis Streicher at the Nuremberg Trials in 1946 to understand that advocates for the violence of war are evil. Streicher neither gave orders for the extermination of Jews nor was involved in any military operations. But that did not prevent him from being convicted of crimes against humanity for producing the anti-semitic journal Der Sturmer that put out a constant barrage of hate propaganda against Jews. 

Streicher's role in preparing the ground for the dehumanization of Jews in Germany was determined to be critical in creating the conditions for their extermination by the Nazis. The Nuremberg prosecutors argued that his articles and speeches were incendiary and that he was an accessory to murder and therefore as culpable as those who actually carried out the killings. The Allied judges agreed and he was convicted of crimes against humanity and hanged in October 1946. The judgment stated in part that he infected the German mind with the virus of antisemitism and incited the German people to active persecution and murder. (Ironically, this is the state of affairs today in the Mideast where Zionist Jews now incite persecution and murder against Palestinians.)

And of course, we hanged a total of eight elite Germans for instituting and waging a war of aggression, the crime against peace, which the U.S. and Israel launched against Iran. Can we at least ostracize those who incite a war of aggression through advocating for it?

The Nuremberg principle that propaganda inciting violence is a crime was codified in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1966. Article 20 states: “1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law. 2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.”

The U.S. in ratifying that Covenant entered a reservation as to Article 20, citing the First Amendment freedom of speech. But 173 nations have ratified, acceded, or succeeded to the treaty. We stand alone in condoning war propaganda and advocacy of hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence. Yet we participated in the successful prosecution and execution of Juluis Streicher at Nuremburg. So war propaganda is forbidden for thee but not for me.

I don’t care if it takes a constitutional amendment creating an exception to the First Amendment. It should be law. But in the meantime, we can at least begin pointing to the immorality of the war hawks who argue against our fundamental right to peace. 

These monsters need to be shamed and ostracized.