"To initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
"You are basically saying that breaking and entering is a worse crime than rape and homicide because rape and homicide often occur after breaking and entering."
-Rob Kall, Op-Ed News
For a few years now, I have been one of the targets of a psychopathic stalker named Brian Good. When Mr. Good recently slandered me on Op-Ed News, and an Op-Ed editor seemingly approved the slander, I complained to Rob Kall. Rob, unfortunately, doesn't get it. Rob apparently is in denial about the fact that aggression is the supreme war crime. He falsely asserts that by re-stating the established position of international law, I was offering a personal opinion, which I was not. The fact that murder is a felony, while petty theft is a misdemeanor, is a matter of established law, not personal opinion. The same is true for the fact that aggression is the supreme war crime, and all other war crimes, no matter how awful, are therefore lesser crimes.
I just responded to Rob Kall as follows.
Dear Rob Kall...
... You write:
" It is our opinion that you are basically saying that breaking and entering is a worse crime than rape and homicide because rape and homicide often occur after breaking and entering."
That is itself a very careless, and perhaps slanderous, distortion of my position, which offered no personal opinion whatsoever, but instead quoted/summarized the status of these respective crimes under international law since the Nuremburg tribunals. It is an established fact, not an opinion, that under international law, aggression is the supreme war crime, and all other war crimes are lesser crimes. This has been the established consensus position of the entire profession of international law since the Nuremburg tribunals. Some of the world's top international law professors have been guests on my radio show and stated this clearly and without any equivocation whatsoever, including Princeton professor and U.N. official Richard Falk, and University of Illinois professor Francis Boyle.
If Brian Good, or you, or anyone else disagrees with the established consensus position of the profession of international law, that is their right. Since international law is entirely man-made, disagreeing with it is at least slightly more sensible than disagreeing with the established consensus of the profession of physics about the existence of the law of gravity. But attacking ME because I merely CITE the consensus position of international law is slanderous for two reasons. First, it lies about my statement by falsely claiming that the position of international law is my personal opinion, which it is not, any more than the consensus position of physicists about gravity is my personal opinion. Second, it lies by distorting the consensus position of international law in a pejorative way. The undisputed fact that aggression is the supreme war crime does not excuse or lessen any other crimes, and no one, least of all me, has claimed that it does.
I request a more careful consideration of this issue, beginning with a quick check with the above international law professors to confirm the undisputed FACT, not opinion, that aggression is the supreme crime under international law, and has been so since the Nuremburg tribunals.
Dr. Kevin Barrett