Published by the Commonwealth of Humanity Tribunal on Crimes Against Humanity
Date: April 9, 2026
* * *
Thesis
Thesis: No government has the right to commit crimes against humanity, yet powerful Western leaders and ruling-class actors repeatedly commit them without punishment, so we are organizing to document these crimes, expose the people responsible, and demand accountability.
Foundational first principles
1. Human beings have inherent worth.
2. Therefore they may not be treated as disposable.
3. Therefore human coexistence has objective moral constraints.
Principles
Human beings are morally prior to states. We existed before every government ever invented, and governments exist -- or are supposed to exist -- to serve us, not the other way around.
Every human life matters equally, across nationality, race, religion, class, and political alignment.
Governments have no legitimate right to commit crimes against humanity under cover of law or office.
The legitimacy of a government does not come from mere control, elections, courts, uniforms, or existing institutions.
The legitimacy of a government is measured by how well it serves human beings within moral limits. The Commonwealth's initial standards for legitimacy apply that measure directly.
A human community of any size with sufficient moral standards has standing to judge criminal power when states refuse to judge themselves.
Law decreed by a state is not the highest moral standard and is easy to corrupt; Natural Law is higher than enacted law.
General reasoning
The argument developed across this project follows from a simple order of priority: human beings are real before states are real, moral limits are binding before offices claim jurisdiction, and organized power does not become legitimate by declaring itself so.
That is why crimes against humanity remain crimes even when they are legalized, normalized, bureaucratized, outsourced, or framed as strategy. The Commonwealth's role is to make those judgments public, disciplined, and reviewable rather than leaving them to institutions that repeatedly protect elite perpetrators.
The framework for that work is distributed deliberately across several pages so that definitions, claims, evidence, and accusations do not collapse into one vague target.
The Glossary presents the project's key definitions and clarifications of contested terms.
The Claims page houses the auditable public claims, each labeled by claim type, publication status, evidence basis, foreseeable challenge, and current answer under the Commonwealth's Procedure.
The Evidence page tracks source material and evidentiary support. The Procedure page states the standards for publication, revision, and challenge. The active Indictment applies the framework to named actors and structures.
Objections
Why are the authors and participants anonymous?
There are two distinct answers to this question. They should be stated separately and honestly.
On legitimacy
The people's tribunal tradition has often treated legitimacy as something granted by recognized officials, scholars, and other public authorities. That is not a neutral rule of reason. It is a social system in which institutions already trusted by power get to decide whose judgment counts.
This Commonwealth explicitly rejects that framework. Its legitimacy does not come from credentialed individuals vouching for each other. It rests on whether the project serves the people, develops from the people, and submits its arguments to public evidence and challenge. Demanding named judges is implicitly demanding the project validate itself through the same elite credentialing system it is indicting. The accused have spent generations conferring legitimacy on each other through titles, offices, institutions, and credentials. That system is part of what is on trial here.
The moral standing to judge crimes against humanity does not require a named professorship, a bar membership, or a former UN appointment. It requires being a human being unwilling to be complicit in those crimes. That is the authority this Commonwealth claims. It is the only authority it claims.
On safety
The second answer is harder to dismiss. The individuals named in this indictment have, by documented record, ordered drone strikes on named targets, approved targeted assassination programs operating across sovereign borders, and run mass surveillance operations against critics, journalists, lawyers, and organizers worldwide. The reasoning page of this site documents nearly 400 U.S. military interventions since 1776. The pattern is not hypothetical. It is the established operating history of the accused.
The corollary is direct: the powers accused here have murdered innocent children. Their characters are not beyond -- and their institutional capacity will not hesitate to ruin the lives of deanonymized, doxxed community members who are serving as judges of those criminals. Expecting participants to attach their names to this project is not a neutral procedural request. It is a request to accept a specific and documented threat profile as the price of participation.
Anonymity in this context is not paranoia. It is a rational operational security decision given the specific track record of the accused.
The remaining objection
It is still possible that anonymity is not a security decision but simply the consequence of having few participants -- or, at least, few willing to stake their livelihoods against monsters. That objection cannot be fully answered in advance. It can only be answered over time, by whether a real community builds around this project or does not.
But the objection contains an assumption worth examining: that contributors without institutional credentials or public reputations have less standing to make moral judgments about crimes against humanity. By what reasoning? A person whose child was killed in a bombed hospital does not require a law degree to name that killing as a crime. A person who has watched a genocide documented in real time does not require a university affiliation to judge it accurately. Any absence of credentials is not absence of standing. The question of who gets to speak, whose judgment counts, and whose moral perception is treated as serious -- that question is itself part of what this project is about.
If the Commonwealth were to be shunned by those with institutional standing, and it remained only everyday persons making arguments that can be checked against public evidence and explicit reasoning -- then its claims would be no weaker for it. The absence of institutional credentials is not the absence of standing -- and may, in fact, be the absence of a conflict of interest.
The Commonwealth does not need validation from famous names or inherited institutions. If its arguments are clear, its evidence is public, and its commitments are answerable to the people it claims to serve, that is enough to assess its legitimacy.
The legitimacy of this project does not rest on human standing in the abstract. It rests on whether the project serves the people and grows from the people. If the Commonwealth of Humanity is built through practice, it will be because ordinary people recognize our shared failure to hold the perpetrators of the worst crimes against humanity to account and commit ourselves to ending the rule of institutions that protect, normalize, or enable those crimes. Its legitimacy arises from service to the people, fidelity to material truth, and accountability to collective action.
Orientation
Glossary -- definitions, argument roles, and clarifications against bad-faith ambiguity.
Claims -- standardized claim packets with status labels and supporting basis.
Evidence -- reference material, source grades, and evidentiary gaps.
Procedure -- publication thresholds, verification rules, correction standards, and challenge handling.
Indictment -- current public accusations against named individuals and structures.
Status: This page is the first-principles hub. The argument's definitions live in the Glossary, and its testable public claims live on the Claims page.