ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/abolition-usa/archive/v01.n017

Internet Message Format | 1998-09-15 | 57KB

From: [e-mail] (abolition-usa-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: abolition-usa-digest V1 #17
Reply-To: abolition-usa-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


abolition-usa-digest   Wednesday, September 16 1998   Volume 01 : Number 017




----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 09:26:18 +0100 (BST)
From: Janet Bloomfield <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) FAX ALERT FASLANE PEACE CAMP (fwd)

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 18:07:36 +0200
From: Pol D'Huyvetter <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail], [e-mail],
    [e-mail], [e-mail],
    [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: FAX ALERT FASLANE PEACE CAMP

Cc: =09Faslane Peace Camp <[e-mail]>

=09=09=09*** URGENT ALERT ***
=09=09=09MODEL LETTER ENCLOSED

=09=09     PLEASE NETWORK THIS ALERT

Gent, 13 September 1998

Dear friends on the networks,

One more time Internet might help us win a struggle !!!

Today we sollicit your help as the Faslane Peace Camp in Helensburgh,
Scotland, is threatened with eviction. Faslane Peace Camp, with its 16 year
history, is the oldest non-violent peace camp opposing nuclear weaponry in
the world (more information about the Peace Camp is included). It is
located near the British Trident nuclear submarine base. The Trident first
strike Strategic Nuclear Weapon System has the destructive potential of
1074 times Hiroshima.

Today you can help by faxing a letter (model letter enclosed) to
  --------------------------------------------------------------
=20
- ->  Argyll & Bute District Council=09=09=09+44-1546 604349
 =20
  Please fax copy to :
  --------------------

- ->  For Mother Earth=09=09=09 =09=09+32-9-233 73 02
- ->  Press Association, Attn. Joe Quinn=09=09+44-141-221 0283
- ->  Helensburgh Advertiser, Att. Kristina Kran=09+44-1436 671 241
 =20
The Peace Camp is in urgent need of your support. Councillors have finally
agreed to meet a delegation of the Peace Camp on 21 September 1998 at the
Victoria Halls in Helensburgh. But we cannot expect anything other than
that they will continue in their endeavour to evict the Peace Camp whilst
leaving Trident untouched in the heart of their constituency. We are
however confident that they will take a different attitude if they receive
requests from around the world to support the non-violent resistence
movement at the Faslane Camp.

The Peace Camp needs as much national and international support
as we can muster. We urge you to register your support for the
Camp.

Yours Sincerely,

Helen Markham=09=09=09=09Pol D'Huyvetter
Faslane Peace Camp=09=09=09For Mother Earth International Office
Shandon,=09=09=09=09Lange Steenstraat 16/d
near Helensburgh=09=09=099000 Gent
Dumbartonshire=09=09=09Belgium
GB8 8HT=09=09=09=09Phone [phone]
Scotland=09=09=09=09Fax [phone]
Phone [phone]=09=09E-mail: [e-mail]
E-mail: [e-mail]=09=09WWW: http://www.motherearth.org/

***********************************************************************
             TRIDENT & FASLANE PEACE CAMP FACT-SHEET
***********************************************************************

=09=09  Britain's Nuclear Weapons System

The UK nuclear weapons system is based on Trident missiles bought from the
USA and ready to be fired from three submarines (four from September) based
at Faslane Naval Base on the Gareloch near Glasgow and stored and loaded
onto the subs at Coulport on Loch Long a few miles further west. Each
submarine can carry up to 96 one hundred kiloton nuclear warheads. One
Trident warhead is 8 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb. The
Trident system is a massive escalation in Britain's nuclear capacity.=20

Trident was finally outlawed by the UN International Court of Justice, when
on July 8, 1996 the UN International Court of Justice (ICJ) gave its
Advisory Opinion to the UN General Assembly on the illegality of nuclear
weapons, stating  that "methods and means of warfare which would preclude
any distinction between civilians and military targets, or which would
result in unnecessary suffering to combatants, are prohibited. In view of
the unique characteristics of nuclear weapons, =85 the use of such weapons =
is
scarcely reconcilable with such requirements".=20

The Court stated clearly that "not only the use but also the treat to use
nuclear weapons is generally contrary to the rules of international
humanitarian law."

Finally the Court also concluded unanimously that there exists a legal
obligation (NPT Art. VI) to conclude a Treaty Banning all Nuclear Weapons.

Though Britain, France, Russia and the USA are reluctant to participate in
such multilateral negotiations, we know that the mounting pressure from
NGO's and most national and local governments will soon move the the
Nuclear Weapons States world to conclude such a Treaty within the framework
of the United Nations.

=09=09=09 Faslane Peace Camp

Faslane Peace Camp is a very visible sign of hope in the struggle to
abolish nuclear weapons, situated right opposite Faslane Naval
Base-home of Britain=92s three nuclear-armed and nuclear-powered
Trident submarines.

For sixteen years now the camp has been a base for non-violent protest
against the naval base. Protesters have cut through fences, negociated
razor wire and swum the Gareloch to get their message accross-that the
Trident system is illegal and immoral, violating international and
humanitarian law (cfr. UN International Court of Justice July 8 1996).

During the first two weeks of  August 1998 the camp was involved in the
highly successful  =93Trident Ploughshares 2000=94 campaign, mounting daily
actions against the base which made headlines in the UK and around the
world. Seven non-violent campaigners are in Scottish prisons at this time
following these protests.

The Peace Camp now faces imminent eviction by Argyll and Bute District
Council. The camp has planning permission and until last July had a lease
for the site. And there exists a petition with 8000 signatures expressing
support for the Peace Camp. But the Council has never discussed any of the
problems it has with the Camp with the campers themselves or with the rest
of the Argyll and Bute electorate. Neither has it explained where it
intends to find the hundreds of thousands of pounds necessary to evict.

The Ministry of Defence is attempting to sell woodlands
adjacent to the camp at the moment-but the Peace Camp is=20
situated directly at the front of 9,5 acres of this land which
has been designated for residential development.

=09=09    Evict Trident, not the Peace Camp !!!

end

***********************************************************************
=09   =09=09MODEL LETTER FOR NGO's=20
          FOR THE ATTN. OF THE ARGYLL & BUTE DISTRICT COUNCIL
***********************************************************************

Place, Date

For Argyll & Bute District Council
Attn. John Wilson,
Convenor, Argyll & Bute Council,
Kilmory, Lochgilphead,
PA31 8RT, Scotland

Fax [phone]


Dear Mr. John Wilson,

I am writing to you to express my concern about the stated intention of
Argyll and Bute District Council to evict the sixteen-year-old Faslane
Peace Camp. The protestors' continued peaceful protest is motivated by
conscience and vindicated by international, moral and humanitarian law, as
well as economic concern for billions of pounds being wasted on the
military industrial complex, while millions live in destitution.

I would urge the Argyll & Bute District Council to reconsider its decision,
and not to stifle the voice of conscientious objection but to support the
non-violent campaigners in their struggle for the abolition of these
weapons of mass-destruction which are so inextricably bound up with global
human misery.

Together we can free the next generations from the threat of nuclear horror=
=2E

We look forward to your response.

Yours Sincerely



end=20
     October  1 1998  International Day of Non-Violent Action
=09              Citizens Inspect nuclear 'sites of crime'
=09=09      Org: Nuclear Weapons Abolition Days =09
                      a working group of Abolition 2000

     October 10 1998  BENEFIT FOR MOTHER EARTH - Vooruit - Gent

=09=09      including:
=09=09=09
=09=09      Information on disarmament actions in Faslane
=09=09      (Scotland) and Kleine Brogel (Belgium)

=09=09      Proclamation Winner Treasure Hunt Kleine Brogel

    ***************************************************************
    *           For Mother Earth International office             *
    ***************************************************************
    *         Lange Steenstraat 16/D, 9000 Gent, Belgium          *
    *                Phone/fax [phone]                    *
    *                  Mobile [phone]                     *
    *                   Fax [phone]                       *=20
    *         E-mail: [e-mail]               *=20
    ***************************************************************
    *             WWW:http://www.motherearth.org/                 *
    ***************************************************************
    *              Postal account : 000-1618561-19                *
    ***************************************************************=20
    *   For Mother Earth is member of Abolition 2000 - the global *
    *network to eliminate nuclear weapons, the International Peace*
    *   Bureau (IPB), World Information Service on Energy (WISE), *=20
    * International Netwerk on Sustainable Energy and Eurosolar   *
    ***************************************************************
    *      For Mother Earth has offices in Belgium, Bulgaria,     *=20
    *       Romania, Slovakia, Sri Lanka and USA, aswell as       *
    *      contacts/groups in Belarus, Czech Republic, France,    *
    *       Finland, Germany, Netherlands and United Kingdom      *
    ***************************************************************

    WHEN SPIDERS UNITE, THEY CAN TIE DOWN A LION -Ethiopian Proverb=09=09  =
   =09=20


- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 06:21:58 -0400
From: Carole Gallagher <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Re: Keep this listserve professional

Peace Action - National Office wrote:
>
> This is the abolition caucus!  A friendly reminder to keep to the topic
> even as loosely defined as it is, at hand - abolition!  There are
> plenty of internet chat rooms and web pages to discuss the Starr report
> and its legal aspects.
>
> -
> Thank you for setting some limits. I've just opened a David McReynolds missive and don't think this listserve should be a forum for therapy and angst, just the facts related to abolition. Something in a professional league, y'know? And no pompous chest thumping by pseudo-Alpha males who use their "peace movement" work as a reason to live without guilt for their real-time activities. Awfully tiresome. No verbal pollution, please!

Carole Gallagher
American Ground Zero
[e-mail]

- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 07:01:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joseph Gerson <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Discussing Clinton's Resignation is appropriate in this conference

9/14

The following is a personal, not organizational, statement :

Friends, whether or not you completely agree with David, he is certainly
right that discussing the fate of the American Caeser, the Commander in
Chief of U.S. military forces - including nuclear - is right. How long ago
was it that people across the globe were wondering whether or not the U.S.
had attacked Afghanistan and Sudan with missiles had more to do with
Monicagate than U.S. elite readings of U.S. national interests?

Well before the U.S. constitutional crisis, our collective hopes of
achieving negotiation of a treaty by the year 2000 to eliminate nuclear
weapons were more than dim (something we're going to have to face in our
name, slogan and means) because we have yet to build the popular movement
needed to force politicians to inaugurate a non-nuclear order. This includes
the US AND other nuclear powers. There ain't no way we're going to get a
treaty with a "No-Nothing" dominated Congress, more sophisticated
imperialists in Congress and elsewhere in Washington's seats of power, and
with this president (wounded or otherwise.)

Impeachment of Clinton is unlikely because it is not year clear that the
committed "high crimes and misdemeanors" described in the U.S. constitution,
and because most Congressional Republicans would prefer to have an even
weaker Democratic president (which is not to say that Clinton hasn't been a
Republican attempting to pass as a Democrat - whatever that is these days).
Republicans certainly do not wish to give Gore the advantages of incumbency
as we approach the year 2000 - even if the possibility of later impeaching
him for fund raising irregularities could lead to a Gingrich presidency
(Constituinally, the Speaker of the House is next in line.)

Unfortunately, it is not clear that anyone has or will have the the leverage
to force Clinton out of the White House (especially as there is increasing
talk of censoring Clinton rather than impeaching him.) While the cigar may
have come as a shocking surprise to most people in the U.S., for the most
part they have read Clinton clearly since his sexual exploits became a
subject of political debate during the 1992 election. Tragically, Clinton's
values, foibles,  and commitment to yuppie-dom economics are more American
than many of us would wish, or at least that's what the initial polling in
the wake of Starr's atrocity seem to indicate.

Should Clinton be forced to resign, we should not expect Gore (the prime
advocate of the MX missile - remember?) to be any better than Clinton in
terms of moving the U.S. from a doctrine in which preparations for nuclear
war remain "a cornerstone of our policy", more accurately understood as
nuclear terrorism. I recall a conversation with Daniel Ellsberg a couple of
years ago in which he described Gore as "the most dangerous man in
Washington." At his DNC speech last Thursday he emphasized his commitment to
"continuity" to the policies of these past six years.

Joseph Gerson


At 06:42 PM 9/13/98 EDT, [e-mail] wrote:
>In a message dated 9/13/98 6:39:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>[e-mail] writes:
>
><< Subj:     Re:  (abolition-usa) Fwd: Response to Counsel's Rebuttal
> Date:    9/13/98 6:39:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time
> From:    [e-mail] (Peace Action - National Office)
> Sender:    [e-mail]
> Reply-to:    [e-mail]
> To:    [e-mail]
>
> This is the abolition caucus!  A friendly reminder to keep to the topic
> even as loosely defined as it is, at hand - abolition!  There are
> plenty of internet chat rooms and web pages to discuss the Starr report
> and its legal aspects.
>
>  >>
> Sorry but the point is not well taken. Whether we like it or not, (and I am
>very distressed about it), the issue of foreign policy, Bill Clinton, and the
>Starr report are news and are linked in ways we can't dodge. Abolition 2000
>doesn't live in a gilded cage - it is part of a real world in which events are
>occuring which do touch on things such as the Starr report.
>
>Sincerely,
>David McReynolds
>
>-
> To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
> with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
> For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
> "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.
>
>


- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 11:29:44 -0400
From: Carole Gallagher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) Discussing Clinton's Resignation is appropriate in this conference

Regarding a potential resignation, I agree tactical agendas must be
discussed. Anyone who wishes to come to grips with cigar issues might do
so in private or in chat rooms.

Let's not stain this listserve - that's all I meant to say.

Carole Gallagher
American Ground Zero

- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 09:28:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: Peace Action - National Office <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) Fwd: Response to Counsel's Rebuttal

No offense,
  but this is a predictable response.  I even considered asking in
advance not to receive responses outlining how the Star Report and
various legal aspects of it relate to the President's ability to
execute his office/foreign policy/and therefore abolition.

Bruce
 > In a message dated 9/13/98 6:39:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
 > [e-mail] writes:
 >
 > << Subj:     Re:  (abolition-usa) Fwd: Response to Counsel's Rebuttal
 >  Date:    9/13/98 6:39:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time
 >  From:    [e-mail] (Peace Action - National Office)
 >  Sender:    [e-mail]
 >  Reply-to:    [e-mail]
 >  To:    [e-mail]
 >
 >  This is the abolition caucus!  A friendly reminder to keep to the topic
 >  even as loosely defined as it is, at hand - abolition!  There are
 >  plenty of internet chat rooms and web pages to discuss the Starr report
 >  and its legal aspects.
 >
 >   >>
 >  Sorry but the point is not well taken. Whether we like it or not, (and I am
 > very distressed about it), the issue of foreign policy, Bill Clinton, and the
 > Starr report are news and are linked in ways we can't dodge. Abolition 2000
 > doesn't live in a gilded cage - it is part of a real world in which events are
 > occuring which do touch on things such as the Starr report.
 >
 > Sincerely,
 > David McReynolds
 >
 > -
 >  To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 >  with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 >  For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 >  "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 20:15:33 -0400
From: Peace through Reason <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) Re: Impeaching Clinton for the Stockpile Stewardship Program

Starr SHOULD be indicted for trying to derail the Constitution.

David McReynolds <[e-mail]> was right about that.

et in dc
_______________________________________________________________________

* Peace Through Reason - http://prop1.org - Convert the War Machines! *
_______________________________________________________________________

- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 21:21:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail] (ACT for Disarmament)
Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) Discussing Clinton's Resignation is appropriate in this conference

Carole wrote:

> Regarding a potential resignation, I agree tactical agendas must be
> discussed. Anyone who wishes to come to grips with cigar issues might do
> so in private or in chat rooms.

In principle I agree with you. On the other hand, I think David's earlier
remarks regarding Clinton respond to the rather sorry state of political
culture. I won't say it is any healthier outside the U.S. It isn't.
Ultimately, it is within this political culture that we must work to
abolish nuclear weapons. I would have liked to see David's thoughts
somehow linked to the abolition cause. How can we relate these so-called
sexual diversions to the folly of nuclear weapons, and of war itself? How
can the peace movement tie in to issues that, for whatever reason, are
pre-occupying the American -- indeed the global -- mind? I sincerely
believe the peace movement needs to be able to respond to seemingly
unrelated front-page issues. I think if abolitionists could make the
link to Zipper-gate, or whatever, in a *** concrete, mature *** fashion, we
could manipulate our issues onto the front pages.

In short, David is onto something. Let's build on this.

Carole further wrote:

> Let's not stain this listserve - that's all I meant to say.

Okay, Carole, you win the "Bad Pun of the Month Award". But this is the
kind of creativity that needs to happen if we are to move our issue.

Saul Chernos
ACT for Disarmament
(and freelance journalist)
Toronto Canada
[e-mail]

- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 16:48:30 -1000
From: Richard Salvador <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) Discussing Clinton's Resignation is appropriate in this conference

Aloha from Hawai'i,

I can't remember where I heard it and which reporter was making the
analysis but a comparison of Clinton to Richard Nixon's weakened moral
authority during the latter's troubles before his resignation allegedly
had led to a crescendoing of the environmental lobby's influence on Nixon
in spite of strong Conservative opposition--which led to the passage of
important environmental regulations and related regulatory agencies.
Supposedly the act creating the EPA was passed during Nixon's troubles.
Which leads me to believe that political strategy, specifically re very
well-thought out anti-nuclear or disarmament issues at this crucial moment
of the presidential power vacuum is crucial.  This is not say that we take
advantage of Clinton's weakness at this time. But the convergence of
several forces that creates political space for exerting a powerful civil
society stand on influencing official disarmament policy may be at hand.
One issue, e.g. subcritical testings, etc, etc, rather than a plethora of
demands may be an option.  Just some thoughts, from a political science
student!  Mahalo (thanks) and greetings from Hawai'i.

Richard Salvador
Univ of Hawai'i-Manoa
Honolulu, HI


On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, ACT for Disarmament wrote:

> Carole wrote:
>
> > Regarding a potential resignation, I agree tactical agendas must be
> > discussed. Anyone who wishes to come to grips with cigar issues might do
> > so in private or in chat rooms.
>
> In principle I agree with you. On the other hand, I think David's earlier
> remarks regarding Clinton respond to the rather sorry state of political
> culture. I won't say it is any healthier outside the U.S. It isn't.
> Ultimately, it is within this political culture that we must work to
> abolish nuclear weapons. I would have liked to see David's thoughts
> somehow linked to the abolition cause. How can we relate these so-called
> sexual diversions to the folly of nuclear weapons, and of war itself? How
> can the peace movement tie in to issues that, for whatever reason, are
> pre-occupying the American -- indeed the global -- mind? I sincerely
> believe the peace movement needs to be able to respond to seemingly
> unrelated front-page issues. I think if abolitionists could make the
> link to Zipper-gate, or whatever, in a *** concrete, mature *** fashion, we
> could manipulate our issues onto the front pages.
>
> In short, David is onto something. Let's build on this.
>
> Carole further wrote:
>
> > Let's not stain this listserve - that's all I meant to say.
>
> Okay, Carole, you win the "Bad Pun of the Month Award". But this is the
> kind of creativity that needs to happen if we are to move our issue.
>
> Saul Chernos
> ACT for Disarmament
> (and freelance journalist)
> Toronto Canada
> [e-mail]


- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 23:38:07 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: (abolition-usa) The inevitability of discussing "the issue"

I had posted a longish letter on the Clinton affair to the Abolition-usa list
(if any of you on the international list want it, let me know). There was
concern expressed that the Abolition Caucus list really needed to stick to
that topic, that Clinton's problems were not germane.

Unhappily, they are germane and one reason for expanding this discussion to
the wider list is that I think those in other countries need some sense from
"here" of what is happening. I don't mean the sordid details (and they are
sordid - the release of the Starr report suddenly made the U.S. Congress the
largest publisher of pornography in the US), but the political implications.

If my reading is correct several things need to be noted. One is that Clinton,
while he might risk another bombing of Afghanistan (not, I think, Sudan, since
he obviously had the wrong target there), will not take the risks of peace.
This is a President who has not looked for ways to involve the US in war - but
he is also notably a President who risks almost nothing, who governs by polls,
and I do not believe our forces are strong enough to persuade him, given his
weakened position, to take any courageous risks for peace. Clinton is many
things - none of them involve courage.

So I think our collective, international strategy, in dealing with the world's
sole superpower, has to be some calculation of where to put pressure. And
right now, I think the White House is a waste of time.

If, as I suspect, Clinton will have to resign (other men would have blown
their brains out after the release of the Starr report - it did the one thing
a man finds it almost impossible to accept - it made Clinton look foolish), we
get Gore.  I have no enthusiasm for Gore and would be afraid that he might
find it "wise" to take an aggressive military position early in his
administration to calm the right wing. That is easy for a "great" power to do
- - bomb Iraq, or Afghanistan. Who is going to stop the US?

I think very little can come from the Presidential office in the months ahead.
I think folks in other countries have a right to that information or, at
least, to my take on it. I was wrong before. Seven months ago when this first
broke I thought Clinton would be forced from office. I was dead wrong. There
is, in the US, an interesting "break" between what is called the "Washington
world" and the rest of the US. The Washington world, and all the media experts
located there, were quite baffled when the American public as a whole rode out
the first revelations.  That may happen again, but the details are so sordid,
so humiliating, that I think it is one thing to suspect Clinton had a
"relationship" with Monica Lewinsky, and very different to have our noses
rubbed in the details.

(There is something else running - the people as a whole are, I think, weary
of this scandal and want it to go away. In a sense, the Starr report told the
American public things it really didn't want to know.  And, because all of us
are also - I hope - sexual animals, the Starr report was very dangerous
because it was a move toward treating sex itself as a criminal act.)

For the American movement, I don't think we can live in a vacuum and avoid
discussing the one issue which, at the moment, everyone else is discussing. My
advice there is that whatever we feel about resignation, impeachment is a very
different matter.  We should take a long view, one that grasps the nature of
American democracy with all its flaws. Impeachment is a profound act. It
involves overturning an election. Unlike Great Britain, the President does not
govern at the whim of the Parliament. He is elected independently. The
division of powers, while sometimes designed to block any movement, is still
how the country is run - there is a sharp line between the Congress and the
Administration which cannot be lightly crossed. Nothing Clinton has done
justifies, in my view, the overturning of an election. Nothing Clinton did
with Monica should have been a surprise to the voters who elected him and re-
elected him. So OUR OWN FORCES need to be careful not to be involved with any
moves toward impeachment, nor to invent our own reasons for it. Sex is not a
high crime. Clinton's other actions, from Welfare through NATO through the
nuclear testing issue through the land mines issue are emphatically not
impeachable events. They are good political issues for us to raise in an
election.

I'm sorry that some are nervous about having this discussion - but I not only
think we can't avoid having it, but in another sense we are a small family of
one or two hundred people. We care about the floods in Bangladesh and want to
know about them. We exchange bits of gossip, we exchange greetings of support.
If the Abolition 2000 movement is alive - and I hope we can survive even if we
fail to reach our goal by 2000 - it will be because we are a kind of  "set of
friends and co-workers, comrades in a long march" and it is quite impossible
not to discuss the events in Russia (which pose enormous dangers to us), or in
this case the US.

I appreciate our having a range of sub-sets of lists and their value. There
will come times when issues or events leap over the lines we had drawn.

Peace,
David McReynolds

- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 15:16:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: Sue Broidy <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Update from Santa Barbara

Abolition 2000 - Update from Santa Barbara

Grassroots News for September

This has already gone out to some of you on the abolition-usa list.  If
this is the second time, I apologize!  I have added a brief report on the
meeting I attended last weekend in Livermore.


Santa Barbara is hot and humid - but it is good to be home again after my
trip to England and Austria.  I was very pleased to meet Frances Connolly
of Abolition 2000 UK and to spend some time talking to her about strategy
and ideas.  It is really helpful to meet colleagues face to face and I look
forward to meeting more of you in the future. I am now back at my desk,
full of renewed enthusiasm to keep in touch more often and with shorter
messages.  It is good to be receiving positive feedback so far on the big
August mailing and I hope that as a result, our 1100 organizations are
feeling more like partners and less isolated.  Please keep in touch with
ideas and strategies for us all to build on.

Indian Admiral Visits Santa Barbara
Admiral Ramdas, India's former Chief of the Naval Staff, visited the
Nuclear Age Peace Foundation recently to talk of his decision to commit
himself to the campaign for a ban on all nuclear weapons.  This happened he
said "after a colossal debate within myself" after almost 45 years in naval
uniform.  The testing in India and Pakistan convinced him of the need for
him to become a peace advocate and before traveling to Hiroshima on August
6th, he led a Peace Rally in New Delhi with the Booker Prize-winning
author, Arundathi Roy.  Admiral Ramdas is planning a Peace Symposium in
India early next year.

The IFUW Conference in Graz Austria.
The International Federation of University Women passed a resolution on
August 25th calling for action from all associated branches and
organizations, to urge their national governments to take immediate steps
to put in place a process for the abolition of nuclear weapons before the
end of the year 2000. The resolution was passed almost unanimously and
delegates received three hundred A2000 campaign action kits from Sue
Broidy, the A2000 coordinator who attended the conference.

Petition Signatures
The Western Pennsylvania Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons has collected
close to 3000 signatures to date.  This is an ongoing project of the
coalition of 30 organizations with a goal of 5000.  Japan has sent us 1048
more signatures, and Australia 47 signatures recently by Internet - thank
you Irene Gale.
Judy Stetson from Falmouth wrote recently with 46 signatures.  She said,
"Here are petitions signed during a one hour (12-1pm) stint in front of the
main Post Office in Falmouth MA. A reporter from our local paper The
Enterprise ran a piece about us ( and Abolition 2000) ahead of time and
took pictures of us..." Thank you Judy, Amelie and Olive.
And news reached us September 1st from New Zealand that  50,000 signatures
have been obtained by Soka Gakkai International volunteers for the
Abolition 2000 petition - a wonderful achievement!.

Letter from Helsinki
In Helsinki, Finland, about 500 people gathered to commemorate Hiroshima in
the evening of the 6th of August in a park in  center of the down. Two
speakers, MEP Heidi Hautala and chair Kalevi Suomela,  told about the
dangers that nuclear weapons based security creates and promoted the
Abolition 2000 campaign. We lighted about 400 lanterns on the water. We
collected signatures to the international Abolition 2000 appeal.
Participants and passers-by signed. We got 702 signatures. It maybe doesn't
sound as a big figure but in Helsinki in two hours it is a lot. There were
smaller events in other locations in Finland, too. I'm sure the Abolition
2000 campaign is more familiar for the Finnish people than it was before
yesterday. We continue in collecting signatures and in inviting other
Finnish NGOs to join the campaign.

New Organizations in the A2000 Network
Organizations joined recently  in the US include the South Asian Peace and
Non-violence Association (SAPNA) in Somerville, MA, the Center for Economic
Conversion in Mountain View CA, the Union City Church of the Brethren and
the Institute for  Peace and Justice in St. Louis, MO. Also signed up
recently are the Communications Coordination Committee for the United
Nations in New York, the  Copper Country Peace Alliance in Houghton,
Michigan , the Youth for Environmental Sanity (YES!). and the Albuquerque
Monthly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends in New Mexico. New
international partners include The Peace Movement of Esbjerg from Denmark
and the Pakistan India Peoples Forum for Peace and Democracy.
We also welcome Young Student Pugwash in Argentina and the Center for
Sustainable Development Initiatives (CENSUDI) in Bolgantanga, Ghana.

New Haven  - a Peace Messenger City
We are very pleased to receive official word that the New Haven Board of
Aldermen adopted the Abolition 2000 Resolution on July 6 1998.  This is the
first municipality in the US to sign the Resolution for a long time -
hopefully the beginning of a new awareness and a significant step in the
Nuclear Free New England movement.

Northern California Abolition 2000 - Meeting in Livermore September 12th
It was very inspiring to meet colleagues in Livermore CA who up till now
have been names on the Internet.  Marylia Kelley of Tri-Valley CAREs was a
wonderful welcoming host and the tour she gave us of the Livermore site was
very sobering - even chilling.  In spite of public opinion, the government
carries on  spending enormous sums of public money on developing nuclear
weapons technology.  The skeleton of the NIF building dominates the site, a
grim reminder of how we all in Abolition 2000 must work harder to get the
public to convey their concerns to their elected representatives. Letters,
postcards, emails and FAXes to candidates for office as well as ongoing
Representatives must be a priority from now until the election - and beyond.

The Livermore meeting was also a chance to hear from Jackie Cabasso about
her recent visit to Japan, John Burroughs about the ICC negotiations in
Rome and Pamela Meidell on India. Marylia Kelley spoke about subcritical
tests, reported on her meeting with the new Energy Secretary Bill
Richardson and gave an update on the lawsuits against the Department of
Energy.  The meeting decided to look for a higher visibility in
Universities and Colleges and a sub committee will be formed to promote
this.  Ideas were discussed for referral to the Abolition 2000 USA meeting
in Chicago on October 9th and 10th and finally it was noted that there
should be a Southern Californian Coalition of Abolition 2000 and this would
be looked into immediately!  Thank you Marylia and all the wonderful
hard-working people in Northern California.

Sincerely,

Susan Broidy, Coordinator

*************************************************************
Abolition 2000- A Global Network to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons
c/o Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
1187 Coast Village Road, Box 123
Santa Barbara, CA 93108
phone: [phone]; fax: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail]   URL: http://www.napf.org/abolition2000/

Join the abolition-usa listserve for keeping in touch with national
Abolition 2000 news.
To subscribe or unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to
"[e-mail]"
with "subscribe or unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
"help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.



- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 08:48:41 -0400
From: Peace through Reason <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Re: Henry Hyde: The Constitution and the Rule of Law

Is this what you wanted, Ross?


Ellen Thomas

[e-mail]


<paraindent><param>left</param>At 11:25 AM 9/11/98 -0400, Ross Wilcock
<<[e-mail]> wrote:

>What a wonderful, inspiring statement by Henry Hyde, Chairman of the
House Judiciary this morning - about the rule of law, and the
Constitution.


>Please post a link to this historic statement when it becomes
available


</paraindent>http://www.house.gov/judiciary/091198f.htm

x

September 11, 1998


Hyde Floor Statement on Referral Resolution


(WASHINGTON) - Floor remarks of U.S. Rep.

Henry J. Hyde (R-IL), chairman of the House

Judiciary Committee, on pending resolution

regarding referral of report from the Office of the

Independent Counsel:


One hundred sixty-six years ago, when our country

was in its robust childhood, the great historian,

Thomas Macauley, wrote that "laws exist in vain for

those who do not have the courage and the means to

defend them."


We are here because circumstances and our

constitution have thrust upon us an onerous duty--

one that requires us to summon the courage and the

means to defend the rule of law. Please don't forget,

when all the distractions and definitions have been

pronounced, at the end of it all, we are about one

mighty task-- to vindicate the rule of law.


We are also met to defend the sacred bond contained

in our oath of office: the bond that links the Members

of Congress, the officials of the Executive Branch,

and our federal judges to the people of the United

States, to those who have given their lives for this

country, and to the American people of the future.


In taking a solemn oath to defend the Constitution, we

have pledged a trust that imposes a heavy

responsibility.


We have pledged a trust to those patriots who sleep

across the river in Arlington Cemetery and in

American military cemeteries around the world: we

have pledged that their defense of freedom and the

rule of law will not have been in vain.


Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, may I remind

us all of the oath we swore when we became Members

of Congress. We raised our right arms and said:


"I, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend

the Constitution of the United States against all

enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true

faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this

obligation freely, without any mental reservation or

purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully

discharge the duties of the office on which I am about

to enter. So help me God."


Traditionally, an oath means a solemn calling on God

to witness to the truth of what you are saying. We all

know the story of Sir Thomas More, who was

beheaded in the Tower of London for refusing to take

the oath of Supremacy that acknowledged Henry VIII

as head of the church in England.


In the great drama of his life, " A Man for All

Seasons," Sir Thomas tells his daughter:


"When you take an oath, you hold your soul in your

hands, and if you break that oath, you open up your

fingers and your soul runs through them and is lost."


I believe with all my heart that each of us took that

oath of office seriously, and that we will so conduct

ourselves that when this ordeal is over, we will have

vindicated the rule of law and brought credit to this

institution in which we are privileged to serve.


We have also pledged a trust to the Americans of the

21st century: We have pledged to hand over to them,

intact and unsullied, the rule of law in a

constitutionally-ordered democracy.


And we have pledged a trust to our fellow-Americans

with whom we share this moment in our history: our

neighbors, who have sent us to this Congress to serve

the common good through the rule of law.


Ninety-four years ago, in a message to the Congress,

President Theodore Roosevelt defined the principle

that must guide our deliberations in the days ahead:


"No man is above the law and no man is below it, nor

do we ask any man's permission when we require him

to obey it."


That principle defines the solemnity of this moment.


We are, sometimes, too cavalier in our attitude

toward the rule of law. It is something we take for

granted. Yet we live in a century which, in blood and

tears, in pain and sorrow, has vindicated the

contention of the Founders of this Republic and the

Framers of its Constitution, that the rule of law is the

only alternative to tyranny, or to the anarchy that

eventually leads to tyranny.


The long, hard march of humanity toward the

promised land of freedom has been marked by the

constant struggle to vindicate the rule of law against

the tyranny of power. Whether our reference point is

the Ten Commandments or the Code of Hammurabi,

Justinian's Code or Magna Carta, the Constitutional

Convention of 1787 or the United Nations Charter of

1945, in each case humanity has made progress on its

journey through history when the rule of law has

triumphed over privilege or power as the arbiter of

human affairs and the method to resolve conflict.


The fact that the gradual expansion of the rule of law

has invariably resulted in human progress is not an

accident of history; it is a reflection of human nature.

For the rule of law is an expression of the spiritual

nature of the human person: created with intelligence

and free will, a moral agent, capable of freedom, and

capable of ordering freedom to the pursuit of

goodness, decency, and justice.


Every Member of our committee, indeed every

Member of the Congress, is a servant of the rule of

law: which, in this instance, means that we are

servants of the Constitution of the United States of

America. To paraphrase Theodore Roosevelt: None of

us is above the Constitution, none of us is below the

Constitution, and none of us is required to ask

permission when we require ourselves -- and all those

who have also sworn a solemn oath of fidelity to the

Constitution -- to obey it.


Because we are servants of the Constitution, because

we too are subject to the rule of law it enshrines, no

partisanship in the matters before us will be worthy of

us.


Americans pride themselves on living under the oldest

written constitution in the world, continually in force.

That historic accomplishment did not simply happen.


In defense of the Constitution, American men and

women have sacrificed their lives in every corner of

the globe.


In defense of the Constitution, the American people

have made enormous sacrifices in time and treasure.


In defense of the Constitution, Americans have

forgotten that they were black, brown, yellow, or

white; that they were Catholic, Jewish Muslim,

Orthodox, or Protestant; that they were Democrats or

Republicans -- and they have remembered that they

are Americans, inheritors of a precious tradition of

the rule of law, and trustees of that tradition before

the eyes of the future.


The Constitution remains viable not only because the

document itself is venerable and its provisions wise.

The Constitution remains viable because the

American people continue to affirm and defend the

principle of the rule of law which animated the

document and gives it its moral ballast and its moral

compass.


We, the servants of the people -- their elected

representatives -- can do no less.


Thus we, too, are under judgement in these hearings:

the judgement of the people; the judgement of history;

the judgement of the moral law.


Let us conduct ourselves and this inquiry in such a

way as to vindicate the rule of law.


Let us conduct ourselves and this inquiry in such a

way as to vindicate the Constitution.


Let us conduct ourselves and this inquiry in such a

way as to vindicate the sacrifices of blood and

treasure that have been made across the centuries to

create and defend this last best hope of humanity on

earth, the United States of America.


                            ##30##



You might also want this:


http://www.house.gov/judiciary/091098.htm



September 10, 1998


Hyde Statement to House Rules Committee


(WASHINGTON) - Statement of U.S. Rep. Henry J. Hyde

(R-IL) to the House Rules Committee regarding pending

resolution to handle referral of information from the Office of

the Independent Counsel:


Mr. Chairman, as we all well know, this meeting begins a

process of immense consequence - a process which our

Constitution thrusts on the House of Representatives. The

solemn duty that confronts us requires that we attain a heroic

level of bipartisanship and that we conduct our deliberations in

a full, fair, and impartial manner. This may prove to be a lofty

challenge, but I believe the gravity of our responsibilities will

overwhelm the petty partisanship that lingers in us all.


Because of that requirement, let me say first that I intend to

continue to work closely with my Democratic colleagues on the

Committee, and in particular, the Ranking Member of the

Committee, John Conyers. I want to commend all involved for

pursuing this matter in such a professional and nonpartisan

manner.


The American people deserve a competent, independent, and

bipartisan review of the independent counsel's referral. They

must have confidence in this process. Politics must be checked

at the door, party affiliation must become secondary, and

America's future must become our only concern. I will not

condone, nor participate in, a political witch hunt. If the

evidence does not justify a full impeachment investigation, I will

not recommend one to the House. However, if the evidence

does justify an inquiry, I will fulfill my oath of office and

recommend a fuller inquiry.


In exercising our responsibility, the Judiciary Committee will not

take at face value the assertions or conclusions of any particular

party. We will undertake a fair, full, and independent review of

the evidence on our own, and we will arrive at our own

conclusions.


In any impeachment proceeding, the House does not determine

guilt or innocence. Instead, it functions much like a grand jury.

We determine whether there is sufficient evidence to charge an

executive branch officer with high crimes and misdemeanors.

Then, the Senate must try that official on those charges. Of

course, we have not reached that point, and no one should

jump to conclusions nor assume the worst.


At this stage, we do not know what information the

Independent Counsel has sent to the House. What I do know is

that we will make every effort to exercise our independent

judgment in this matter.


Given the gravity of the situation, we must act now, and the

Rules Committee must lead. I appreciate the seriousness of the

task you are about to undertake and your willingness to address

it expeditiously.


I ask that this Committee favorably report to the House a

resolution authorizing the Judiciary Committee to take custody

of the referral from the Independent Counsel. I ask that the

resolution direct the Committee to review the material and

report its findings and recommendations to the full House for

possible further action--in particular, whether the Committee

should conduct a fuller inquiry.


Our first challenge is to ensure that the American people are

given what is rightly theirs -- information that may constitute

grounds for impeachment of their duly elected President --

while ensuring that the House's constitutional duty to conduct a

fair, full and independent review is not jeopardized.


Mr. Chairman, I agree with the considered judgment of

Speaker Gingrich and Minority Leader Gephardt that the full

House should authorize the release to the public of narrative

portions of the Independent Counsel's referral and should take

this action now. This initial release would not include raw

evidentiary material that might contain information about

individuals unrelated to this investigation. The resolution should

grant to the Committee on the Judiciary the authority to

release such material, if release is warranted, after the

Committee has had the chance to review this material. Because

of the importance of the material, the resolution should contain

a presumption of release.


This referral belongs to the American people, and they have a

right to know its contents. The American people have patiently

waited as rumors and speculation have substituted for facts and

information. It is time that we move this process ahead, and the

public release of the referral will help us embark on that

process.


Mr. Chairman, we are not yet beginning a full impeachment

inquiry, but I want to take a moment to address the issue of

impeachment. Constitutional scholars and reasonable people

disagree as to what is an impeachable offense, but there are a

few principles we should keep in mind.


At this time, I am reminded of the difficult times in 1973, when

Chairman Peter Rodino presided over the impeachment inquiry

proceedings against President Nixon, and directed his staff to

report on the constitutional grounds for impeachment. I have

submitted a copy of that report as an appendix to my written

statement. Let me share with you part of the report's

conclusion:


"While it may be argued that some articles of impeachment

have charged conduct that constituted crime and thus that

criminality is an essential ingredient, or that some have charged

conduct that was not criminal and thus that criminality is not

essential, the fact remains that in the English practice and in

several of the American impeachments the criminality issue was

not raised at all. The emphasis has been on the significant

effects of the conduct-- undermining the integrity of the office,

disregard of constitutional duties and oath of office, arrogation

of power, abuse of the governmental process, [and] adverse

impact on the system of government. Clearly, these effects can

be brought about in ways not anticipated by the criminal law.

Criminal standards and criminal courts were established to

control individual conduct. Impeachment was evolved by

Parliament to cope with both the inadequacy of criminal

standards and the impotence of courts to deal with the conduct

of great public figures. It would be anomalous if the framers,

having barred criminal sanctions from the impeachment

remedy and limited it to removal and possible disqualification

from office, intended to restrict the grounds for impeachment

to conduct that was criminal."


When considering the question of impeachment, the report

concluded:


"It is useful to note three major presidential duties of broad

scope that are explicitly recited in the Constitution: "to take

Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," to "faithfully

execute the Office of the President of the United States" and to

"preserve, protect, and defend, the Constitution of the United

States" to the best of his ability. The first is directly imposed by

the Constitution; the second and third are included in the

constitutionally prescribed oath that the President is required to

take before he enters upon the execution of his office and are,

therefore, also expressly imposed by the Constitution."


Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee: a word about

the significance of the oath each of us swore to uphold when we

became Members of Congress. We raised our right arms and

said:


"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the

Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign

and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the

same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental

reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and

faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about

to enter. So help me God."


Traditionally, an oath means a solemn calling on God to witness

to the truth of what you are saying. We all know the story of Sir

Thomas More, who was beheaded in the Tower of London for

refusing to take the oath of Supremacy that acknowledged

Henry VIII as head of the church in England.


In the drama of his life, "A Man for All Seasons," Sir Thomas

tells his daughter:


"When you take an oath, you hold your soul in your hands, and

if you break that oath, you open up your fingers and your soul

runs through them and is lost."


I believe with all my heart that each of us took that oath of

office seriously, and that we will so conduct ourselves that when

this ordeal is over, we will have vindicated the rule of law and

brought credit to this institution in which we are privileged to

serve.


                            ## 30 ##




_______________________________________________________________________


* Peace Through Reason - http://prop1.org - Convert the War Machines! *

_______________________________________________________________________

- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

End of abolition-usa-digest V1 #17
**********************************

-
 To unsubscribe to $LIST, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe $LIST" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.