This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Refuse to Pay Government Debt Incurred for Unlawful and Oppressive Purposes ... It Is the Personal Debt of Those Who Ordered It to Be Incurred
There is an established legal principle that people should not have
to repay their government's debt to the extent that it is incurred to
launch aggressive wars or to oppress the people.
These "odious debts" are considered to be the personal debts of the tyrants who incurred them, rather than the country's debt.
Wikipedia gives a good overview of the principle:
In
international law, odious debt is a legal theory which holds that the
national debt incurred by a regime for purposes that do not serve the
best interests of the nation, such as wars of aggression, should not be
enforceable. Such debts are thus considered by this doctrine to be
personal debts of the regime that incurred them and not debts of the
state. In some respects, the concept is analogous to the invalidity of
contracts signed under coercion.The doctrine was formalized in
a 1927 treatise by Alexander Nahum Sack, a Russian émigré legal
theorist, based upon 19th Century precedents including Mexico's
repudiation of debts incurred by Emperor Maximilian's regime, and the
denial by the United States of Cuban liability for debts incurred by
the Spanish colonial regime. According to Sack:
When a
despotic regime contracts a debt, not for the needs or in the interests
of the state, but rather to strengthen itself, to suppress a popular
insurrection, etc, this debt is odious for the people of the entire
state. This debt does not bind the nation; it is a debt of the regime,
a personal debt contracted by the ruler, and consequently it falls with
the demise of the regime. The reason why these odious debts cannot
attach to the territory of the state is that they do not fulfil one of
the conditions determining the lawfulness of State debts, namely that
State debts must be incurred, and the proceeds used, for the needs and
in the interests of the State. Odious debts, contracted and utilised
for purposes which, to the lenders' knowledge, are contrary to the
needs and the interests of the nation, are not binding on the nation –
when it succeeds in overthrowing the government that contracted them –
unless the debt is within the limits of real advantages that these
debts might have afforded. The lenders have committed a hostile act
against the people, they cannot expect a nation which has freed itself
of a despotic regime to assume these odious debts, which are the
personal debts of the ruler.Patricia Adams, executive
director of Probe International (an environmental and public policy
advocacy organisation in Canada), and author of Odious Debts: Loose
Lending, Corruption, and the Third World's Environmental Legacy, has
stated that:by giving creditors an incentive to lend only for
purposes that are transparent and of public benefit, future tyrants
will lose their ability to finance their armies, and thus the war on
terror and the cause of world peace will be better served.A
recent article by economists Seema Jayachandran and Michael Kremer has
renewed interest in this topic. They propose that the idea can be used
to create a new type of economic sanction to block further borrowing by
dictators.
Jubilee USA notes that creditors may lose their rights to repayment of odious debts:
Odious
debt is an established legal principle. Legally, debt is to be
considered odious if the government used the money for personal
purposes or to oppress the people. Moreover, in cases where borrowed
money was used in ways contrary to the people’s interest, with the
knowledge of the creditors, the
creditors may be said to have committed a hostile act against the
people. Creditors cannot legitimately expect repayment of such debts.
The
United States set the first precedent of odious debt when it seized
control of Cuba from Spain. Spain insisted that Cuba repay the loans
made to them by Spain. The U.S. repudiated (refused to pay) that debt,
arguing that the debt was imposed on Cuba by force of arms and served
Spain’s interest rather than Cuba’s, and that the debt therefore ought
not be repaid. This precedent was upheld by international law in Great Britain v. Costa Rica
(1923) when money was put to use for illegitimate purposes with full
knowledge of the lending institution; the resulting debt was annulled.
The launch of the Iraq war was an unlawful war of aggression. It was based on false premises (weapons of mass destruction and a connection between Iraq and 9/11; see this, this, this, this, this and this).
Therefore, the trillions in debts incurred in fighting that war are
odious debts which the people might lawfully refuse to pay for.
The Bush and Obama administrations have also oppressed the American people through spying on us - even before 9/11 (confirmed here and here)
- harassment of innocent grandmothers and other patriotic Americans
criticizing government action, and other assaults on liberty and the
rule of law. See this. The monies borrowed to finance these oppressive activities are also odious debts.
The
government has also given trillions in bailouts, loans, guarantees and
other perks to the too big to fails. These funds have not helped the
American people. For example, the giant banks are still not loaning. They have solely gone into speculative investments and to line the pockets of the muckety-mucks in the form of bonuses. PhD economist Dean Baker said
that the true purpose of the bank rescues is "a massive redistribution
of wealth to the bank shareholders and their top executives". PhD
economist Michael Hudson says
that the financial “parasites” have killed the American economy, and
they are "sucking as much money out" as they can before "jumping ship".
These are odious debts.
Bush, Cheney, Paulson, Geithner, Summers and others who ordered that these debts be incurred must be held personally liable
for them. We the American people are not responsible to creditors -
such as China, Saudi Arabia - who have knowingly financed these illegal
and oppressive activities which have not benefited the American people,
but solely the handful of corrupt politicians who authorized them.
- advertisements -
Fine, make a hypothetical arguement. But when you do, you might as well throw in every debt the national government has ever taken. Why limit it to the Iraq war? What about Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, TARP, stimulus bill, and every pork barrel spending project ever undertaken by Washington?
Don't be a douche.
I'm not going to defend everything on your list, but there's a strong case to be made that the national interest is served by providing the poor and elderly with food/medical services/et al. I don't see how you can declare these odious debts.
OK, I'll be a douche; those are odious debts. The government has spent the money in the "Trust Fund" on war, and now it wants to borrow money in my name so that it can cover up its own lies and honor the promises it made to other citizens. There is no Social Security; all the money I've put in it has been flushed down the toilet, I'll never see a dime of it, not a goddamned dime. I'm already paying into this system, now you want me to pay more?
There are legal concepts to cover nearly any potential situation. My taunt to China to accept 30 has been kindly augmented by GW to clarify the position of 0. So, China, whatcha want? 30 or 0 to get out from under your dollar trap since we both know your government has about as much use for the rule of law as my government does.
Given their recent investments in Africa, I'd say China's strategy is to pawn off whatever risks there are in holding US-based assets on to countries who'd take 1 because right now, they've got 0. I just read something on the BBC's website (I think) where African officials were interviewed regarding China's investments there and human rights and the officials said basically, "Hey, China came in and bought a mine and built roads to the mine and put people to work. We don't care what they do in China to their own people, they're helping us". China could basically divest itself of all US-based risk and buy up most of Africa in the process.
They also appear to be stockpiling commodities, again, probably using recycled dollars to buy them and just holding them in case of dollar collapse or debt repudiation.
Let me add this to the topic...
Our current system of "money-as-debt"---one in which money is created through a borrowers promise to repay loans and the interest on loans, and a system through which the financial industry has created, through fraud and other criminal behavior, a multi-trillion dollar international crisis of debt--- this system only works if citizens purchase necessary goods and services with debt and then service their debt---repaying both the principal and the interest on their loan. But the usurious interest rates charged on credit cards and other personal "loans" far exceeds the yearly wage increase experienced by the majority of employed Americans vs. any reasonable measures of CPI. Don't forget, interest increases exponentially.
Our government is committing trillions upon trillions of dollars of taxpayers' money to save the very institutions who thrive on the ability of the public to service its debt. The government is undertaking all of these actions to try and "loosen the credit markets so that lending and borrowing can resume". In other words, the actions of the government---in the name of saving the system---implicitly means that the government is attempting to perpetuate a system of peonage and debt-servitude. As such, since interest accrues exponentially, the ability of the average citizen to live debt free becomes increasingly impossible over time.
"...Debt bondage, debt slavery, bonded labor or peonage are all terms used to describe an institution where workers are held as unfree labour. Work is exchanged for the paying off of loans instead of being compensated with currency or goods. It is similar to indenture or the truck system..." Wiki
13th Amendment Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
5th Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The system of "money-as-debt" that the government is attempting to preserve through spending trillions in taxpayer dollars is unconstitutional for two reasons:
The 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States makes peonage illegal. The purposeful actions of our government, in spending taxpayer monies to uphold a system of "money-as-debt" within a regime of increasing wage-deflation, and as such in placing the majority of American citizens in a situation in which they are compelled to employ debt (and thus live in debt-servitude) in order to pursue the most basic and natural rights of life and happiness, is unconstitutional! It is illegal!!
The 5th Amendment to the Constitution stipulates that private property shall not be confiscated for public use, lest there is proper remuneration. The money that I earn is my property---not the fiat dollars per se, but the wages earned for my labor. But those wages are being garnished DE FACTO because I am being forced to pay higher taxes (in the future) due to my government's choice to save a system that only thrives by placing me further into debt. AND, since much of this money is being spent and printed without direct Congressional approval, it is fair to argue that these actions by the federal government violate Constitutional separation of powers standards viz the raising of taxes, etc.
And finally, we must understand that in a regime of fiat currency in which the currency is not tied to any underlying REAL capital, our government can print and print and print money without ANY obstacle to their insanity. And it is we, the citizens of the nation, who must eventually pay for our leaders' choice to save the wealthiest whilst simultaneously placing the rest of us into debt servitude for the balance of our, and our children's, natural lives.
Very well put. Merely granting me a "vote" in this system does not justify its use to enslave me. The government continues to borrow money and sign my name to the loan documents. I am given no choice in the matter. I now have more debt than I can ever repay, and all of it (yes, all of it) against my will. I have to live with a balanced budget, the government must as well. When it borrows against my good name it does so without my authorization, and as such I repudiate the debt. This is involuntary servitude at the very least. Whatever "money" I manage to keep for myself is stolen from me by the government's central bank through inflation.
Those who lend money to the unconstitutional U.S. government will not be paid back.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/147420-dear-world-please-stop-lending-th...
Bravo.
I posted here on topic of odious debt a number of times.
Is there anybody who doubts that the financial oligarchs who sezed control of this country are looting it for personal benefit...not interests of the citizens?
Why do they refuse to disclose their conduct?
Why oppose an audit?
prima facie evidence.
The ensuing clusterfuck from the recission of immoral debt soon commences.
Bankers, through their proxies, to set off suitcase nukes in the subway?
Amen....
The governemnt itself must be restructured....
Eliminate nonqualified people granted office by advertising....Hint...Review the wiki bio on most any poly in office...Most all of them are not qualified....
Restructure the democracy....
Think about it this way....
Would you invest in a business that made cars whereby the people that were employed have never made a car before ?
Should an economy seek efficiency or be run by those who know nothing about efficiency or economics in general ?
Is a nation better off when its people have maximum freedom and employment....or a massive reduction in both ?
.................................
The solution is relatively simple....
The US govt. needs to be managed on a local basis....township by township....with state mandates.....not Fed mandates....
The internet makes proper democracy possible in that in order to cast a vote....one can only do so after reading the factual qualifications and history about each person in govt, management positions....
Also govt. needs to make up no more than 15% fo a sole consumption tax base....voted usage of funds per township based on funds available....There can be no debt beyond actual income....
Think about it....
THERE ARE A LOT OF CHANGES THAT SHOULD AND MUST BE MADE....
IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN BY DEFAULT....
The simplest point is what cannot be repaid will not be repaid. The legality of the loan is moot. They will default,as they have in the past. The parasite lenders have no problem killing their host. That possibility was calculated into the initial revenue projection.
What's that line from Tropic Thunder again?
Oh yeah ... "Never go full retard."
Have fun getting locked up for not paying your taxes, "George."
No seriously. I really wanted my country to have thousands of 30 megawatt data centers to spy on EVERYONE. I really wanted all the phone companies to be able to bill whatever the fuck they want whenever the fuck they want without recourse. I really wanted to participate in blowing 14 year old girls legs off in afghanistan. I really wanted my country to invade iraq sieze it's oil and give the government an allowance forcing it to pay to be brutalized. My government is just doing these things for me so I DON'T have to.
I also really really wanted a huge multibillion dollar Hollywood to pump out crap story after crap story as cover for what is going on. I'd pay attention to it but I've got to go cry to a touching Hallmark movie about how some stupid shit really will work out in the end. AS LONG AS IT'S MAKEBELIEVE. BRB
I hate the enormous debt too, but you have included weak arguments in your brief, and I'll call attention to them.
You have put too little emphasis on culpable parties in Congress, Obama, and everyone who has furthered the sham of fiat currency.
Regarding our military affairs, we have done so to protect our interests and allies around the world. So long as critical mass pushes us in the direction of global economy, we will require and international military. Our forebears warned against this, but corporate interests drive this. For example, explain to me the logic of doing heavy business with a country (China) that brazenly steals intellectual property at every opportunity? Yet corporations tolerate this to gain access to demand and supply.
Regarding your comments: "The launch of the Iraq war was an unlawful war of aggression. It was based on false premises (weapons of mass destruction and a connection between Iraq and 9/11; see this, this, this, this, this and this)." Where were you sleeping through all of this? Do you forget the 14 months of domestic and UN deliberation BEFORE we moved forward? Hindsight is 20/20 and therein the truth is revealed, foresight is far more difficult and, by it's nature, speculative in spite of all best efforts to not be such.
"The Bush and Obama administrations have also oppressed the American people through spying on us - even before 9/11 (confirmed here and here) - harassment of innocent grandmothers and other patriotic Americans criticizing government action, and other assaults on liberty and the rule of law." You're ignoring the judicial actions that must precede "spying". I have nothing to hide, so if spying roots out the ilk that our swiss cheese borders and weak politicians have allowed, then bring it on. Don't be naive! We live in a world where violence can be projected globally, by the smallest of ruffians.
GW, I like your posts. But, you are overly biased on this one. "...who have knowingly financed these illegal and oppressive activities which have not benefited the American people, but solely the handful of corrupt politicians who authorized them." A "handful" of corrupt politicians? You must have really big hands.
First, "Deliberation" at the UN does not constitute APPROVAL by the UN.
Second, if you think there's legitimate judicial actions that precede spying on our own citizens then you are the one that's being naive. And it's an attitude like yours that enables these ruffians as you call them, to convince a disinformed public, that spying and torture are for their own good. You've definitely drunk the kool-aide.
See UN 1441, and
In the US: The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 [1], Pub.L. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution (i.e., a law) passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing the Iraq War.
There are legitimate judicial and congressional actions that precede spying. You disagree. Therefore, we disagree.
btw...who is being tortured?
The Iraq war resolution was based on the knowingly false linkage between Iraq and 9/11. Please read the link on this false linkage in my post.
Whose good are they for, then? No one's? That seems odd for the government to pursue a policy from which NOBODY benefits, doesn't it?
No
Really? So there are people who do things for no discernible benefits?
That's one of those things that's easy to say in a glib fashion, but doesn't withstand even rudimentary scrutiny.
The actuality is that those actions benefit the politicians by keeping the populations they represent safer, thus increasing the politicians' chances of re-election. It's a combination of self-serving and other-serving activity.
There's also a "signaling" component to the actions, as if to say "We are doing what we can to keep you safe, so even if something happens, remember that we did these things, but no plan of action is perfect".
I don't feel safer knowing that the NSA might be spying on me because I went to college with a guy who got a visa to go to Iraq. I feel even less safe knowing that if they are spying on me, there's nobody monitoring them to find out why.
Good critical points and I agree. Still, all these machinations and bailouts do have a sort of "apres nous, le deluge" feel to them and it does seem like those profiting from it are doing so in an underhanded manner. But, then again, I think it was Mark Twain who said, "The real crime isn't what the government makes illegal, but what it leaves legal" (paraphrase).