ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/abolition-usa/archive/v01.n134

Internet Message Format | 1999-05-29 | 41KB

From: [e-mail] (abolition-usa-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: abolition-usa-digest V1 #134
Reply-To: abolition-usa-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


abolition-usa-digest       Sunday, May 30 1999       Volume 01 : Number 134




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

Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 16:33:49 -0700
From: "David Crockett Williams" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Washington Post on Nuclear War Dangers

From: Carol Moore <[e-mail]>
To: Peace list from <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nuclear War Op-Ed Washington Post
Date: Thursday, May 27, 1999 3:36 PM

Invitation to Nuclear Disaster

By Michael Krepon

Tuesday, May 25, 1999; Page A15

Unless concerted action is taken soon to reduce nuclear dangers,
conditions will be coming into place for a dreadful accident, incident
or
even a nuclear detonation of Russian origin. The problems posed by
Chinese nuclear espionage pale in comparison with the dangers inherent
in
Russia's domestic plight, its aging arsenal, stressed-out command and
control and lax export controls. Moreover, the current U.S. nuclear
posture exacerbates current dangers by requiring the deployment of 6,000

nuclear weapons, approximately half of which are on hair-trigger alert.

Russia, whose GNP is now the size of Belgium's (and falling), cannot
match U.S. nuclear force levels. Over the next decade, deployed Russian
nuclear weapons on strategic forces may well dip below 1,000 -- six
times
below the number allowed by the START II treaty, which has been held
hostage by the Russian Duma since January 1993.

At present the Kremlin retains as many of its nuclear forces on
hair-trigger
alert as possible. This is done to compensate for weaknesses in Russia's

conventional forces, for gaping holes in the old Soviet early warning
network and for the vast launch readiness of U.S. nuclear forces.
Independent estimates suggest that Russia maintains in excess of 3,000
nuclear warheads in very high states of launch readiness.

This is a recipe for disaster. The CIA's unclassified assessment of the
"fail-safeness" of Russian command and control is not reassuring.
Although
the CIA says nuclear safety is not a concern as long as current security

procedures and systems are in place, stresses in the Russian command and

control system are growing, and are aggravated by the high launch
readiness of U.S. nuclear forces.

In January 1995 Russian forces mistook a scientific rocket launched from

Norway for a U.S. attack, thus activating President Boris Yeltsin's
nuclear
"suitcase." In September 1998 a deranged Russian sailor killed seven of
his
shipmates and barricaded himself inside the torpedo bay of his nuclear
attack submarine. Security forces recaptured the boat, which may or may
not have had nuclear weapons on board. In September 1998, a guard at a
facility holding 30 tons of plutonium shot other guards and then
escaped,
heavily armed. The list of incidents of this kind in Russia that we know

about is chilling.

How does the U.S. maintenance of 6,000 deployed nuclear weapons, half
on hair-trigger alert, help this country deal with such dangers? With
Russian forces projected to decline dramatically over the next decade,
what useful purpose is served by maintaining bloated nuclear arsenals at

such high states of launch readiness?

While U.S. nuclear forces have been downsized with the end of the Cold
War, U.S. nuclear doctrine and targeting requirements have changed
relatively little. We still maintain massive attack options, with the
potential
for many hundreds of nuclear detonations. We still place Russia's
crumbling industrial capacity "at risk," even though these factories
have
become liabilities rather than assets for the Kremlin. We still maintain

forces at very high launch readiness, even though there is no longer a
doctrinal requirement to launch quickly in the event of a Russian
nuclear
attack.

Capitol Hill has barely addressed the dangers inherent in interlocking
U.S.
and Russian nuclear postures. Extensive targeting lists and high Russian

alert rates reinforce high U.S. alert rates. This vicious circle will be

extremely dangerous as strains on Russian command and control continue
to grow. As long as the U.S. strategic posture involves keeping our
nuclear
guns out of their holsters with the triggers cocked, there is no chance
whatever of persuading Russia to take its dangerous and aging nuclear
missiles off hair-trigger alert.

These nuclear dangers are badly compounded by congressional insistence
that the United States maintain a force level of 6,000 deployed warheads

- -- the maximum allowed under START I -- until the 1993 START II
accord finally enters into force. In this way, national decisions on the

proper size of U.S. strategic forces are determined by the most
retrograde
delegates of the Russian Duma, who have blocked ratification of START
II.

What could the United States conceivably do with 6,000 deployed nuclear
warheads in the post-Cold War era? Why is it in the national security
interest of the United States to wait for action by Russia's
unpredictable
and erratic legislature before taking new initiatives to reduce nuclear
dangers? Doesn't it make more sense to accelerate the process of deep
reductions now?

Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.) has a better idea than waiting for the Duma.
He would strike the legislative requirement to remain at 6,000 deployed
weapons and proceed instead with parallel, reciprocal, verifiable
reductions.

Without accelerated reductions and new initiatives, such as a stand-down

of alert nuclear forces, we invite tragedies on a massive scale.

The writer is president of the Henry L. Stimson Center.

=A9 Copyright 1999 The Washington Post Company
Distributed under fair use--or sue me quick before the
inevitable nuke war....



- -
 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: Fri, 28 May 1999 03:33:37 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: (abolition-usa) McReynolds: Reflections on the Indictment of Milosevic


 The decision by the International Tribunal in The Hague to indict Slobodan
Milsoevic will probably complicate negotiations to end the war. On the one
hand it looks bad for NATO to negotiate with a man indicted of crimes, and on
the other hand Milosevic now has little incentive to settle without some
guarantee of immunity. It was always more urgent to get a peace settlement
that to indict someone. But now that an indictment has been issued there are
questions for the American and European peace, religious, and left movements.

 One question is whether the indictment is valid. I'm not a lawyer. I think,
however, that there are serious problems with the indictment. For law to be
seen as legitimate it must be seen as relatively impartial. There is no
question in my own mind that the mass expulsions from Kosov@ occured at the
orders of Milosevic, that the flight of hundreds of thousands of civilians
from Kosov@ was not, in the beginning, a response to the bombing but a result
of intimidation and violence by the Serb paramilitaries, Serb troops, etc.
And that these expulsions, without any basis in law, and without any process
of law, are, on the face of it, a crime.

 They do not in my view constitute genocide - a term I urgently wish we used
with more restraint. (If Hitler had driven six million Jews out of the Third
Reich it would have been a terrible thing - but infinitely to be preferred to
their actual fate). I am aware that at the time the bombing began, and even
before it began, the KLA had been involved in major armed conflict with the
Serb forces and that in such situations it is impossible to be sure without
careful investigation which killings were "military" (ie., between armed
forces of the KLA and the Serb military) and which were atrocities committed
against unarmed and non-resisting civilians.

 (There are various reports out of Kosov@ of some areas where Albanians seem
to be living peacefully and other reports, largely based on the refugees, of
killing. Given the past record of exaggeration on both sides during a war,
the only fact of which we can be certain is that a vast number of Albanians
have been driven out of Kosov@, and that action in itself would, I believe,
be criminal).

 However there is also the NATO attack on Yugoslavia which violated NATO's
own charter, the assurances given to the OSCE, and the Charter of the United
Nations. Walter Rockler, a Washington lawyer and a former prosecutor at the
Nuremberg War Crimes Trials is reported to have said "The Nuremberg Court
found that to initiate a war of aggression, as the U.S. has done against
Yugoslavia, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme
international crime".

 These "reflections" don't seek to excuse Milosevic on the grounds that for
justice to be done we must apply it equally to events that may now be decades
or more in the past (such as slavery, the ethnic cleansing of the Native
Americans, or even more recent events such as direct US involvement in
torture, rape, assassination, and mass murder in Central America, or the
horrors of Indochina). Rather, taking the immediate events of this time
period, and the actors involved, it is impossible to single out Milosevic and
not also indict the Muslim leader in Bosnia, or the leader in Croatia - there
is, I believe, substanial evidence that both men were involved in war crimes
and, in the case of Croatia, disturbing evidence that the US was directly
involved in the final "ethnic cleansing" of the Kraina region in Croatia,
resulting in the mass "purge" of over 200,000 Serbs, and the murder of a
number of them at the hands of the Croatian forces.

 Nor is it possible even in this very most immediate "time frame" to indict
Milosevic for one crime - ethnic cleansing - and not also indict all member
states of NATO for the more serious crime of a war of aggression.  Since the
NATO bombing began, NATO has used weapons (cluster bombs) which many consider
to be criminal, it has targeted with deliberation and by its own admission
such objectives as factories, power plants and communications centers which
were primarily civilian and not military. (I leave aside the many "accidents"
including the deadly attack on the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade).

 I think all of us are disturbed by the light use of  the term "war
criminal". As with the term "genocide", it should be used carefully and with
precision. Most of us have a very hard time finding "two parties both guilty
of a crime". That is, we are really happy if we can say that World War II was
a "good war" because Japan attacked us. We are very uneasy when we attack
someone else - as in Indochina. It was hard for us to confront that fact - a
certain bias toward our own nation, a certain trust of our leaders, a certain
respect for authority, all require long discussion of facts before,
gradually, over time, a new consensus is reached, as it was during the
Indochina War, that the United States was the aggressor.

 In the present war, both sides have committed genuine crimes. There is no
"good guy". Yet thus far only one side has been indicted. Unless the Hague
Tribunal follows on with indictments of Clinton, Blair, etc. etc., then the
indictments are entirely political and the Hague Tribunal is discredited.
(Which I fear is what will happen). It won't mean that Milosevic didn't
commit crimes - it will mean that the failure to indict others guilty of
crimes in this same situation means the indictment is tainted, politically
motivated, and the court itself part of a corrupt process.

 I know that some who get this - and I'll post it fairly widely - will
continue to insist that NATO had the right and even the moral duty to violate
the UN Charter. Legally, and morally, that excuse can't hold water.  It was
what Hitler said when he invaded the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia in 1938,
on the grounds that the German population there was being abused by the
government. No nation, and no group of nations, can set themselves above a
clear international law. If there is confusion about this in the United
States and Great Britain it is because at the moment there is a good deal of
guilt, and a great deal of dodging the reality of how much of the rest of the
world see the present horror. And because, at the moment, the one - and the
only - reason for continuing the war is a desperate effort to save NATO's
face. The fate of the Albanians has long ceased to be of serious interest to
any of the policy makers. The Kosovars are pawns to be manipulated, not human
beings to be rescued.

 Few - outside of a handful of left sects - defend Belgrade's purge of the
Albanian popuation. Posts that one receives daily from inside Yugoslavia make
it clear there is a healthy opposition there to Milosevic,  men and women who
speak out at great risk. Milosevic is guilty of indefensible conduct.  But
the world has also seen the full fury of NATO's air force unleashed in what
is essentially a cowardly attack on Kosov@ and Serbia - attacks that would
rather see civilian casualties than risk the lives of US and British pilots.
The world has watched as refugee convoys, hospitals, bridges, homes,
factories, etc., etc., etc. are destroyed by massive air attack. There
cannot, really, after more than two months of such attack, be many "military"
targets left - what we have now in an effort to break the will of a whole
people.

 These attacks do not "justify" anything which Milosevic has done. Rather,
like the ethnic cleansing, these attacks are profoundly criminal in and of
themselves.  We must, as individuals and organizations, be clear that what is
involved is not some "error", not some "accident", but a rogue state at
loose.  the United States is that state. We have seen Clinton brutalize Sudan
and Afghanistan with air strikes to divert attention from the impeachment
hearings. Now we see the vastly more arrogant unleashing of power against a
population  which fought bravely on the side of the Allies during World War
two.

 Former President Jimmy Carter, in his Op Ed piece in the Thursday edition of
the NY Times came as close to saying this as a former President can.  Our
work remains complex - we do not support Milosevic. But we are dealing in a
situation where the conscience of the West is not represented at the Hague,
or #10 Downing St., or the White House. We - along with our coworkers under
air attack in Serbia - must condemn crimes and criminals, not only in distant
countries, but in our own. It is a lonely time for many of us who had looked
to European social democracy as a kind of force for civilization and have
seen it coopted by the military power of NATO. We have long known that
Clinton was a liar. Now, along with Milosevic, he is a war criminal - though
not yet indicted.

 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: Wed, 26 May 1999 09:57:10 -0400
From: Peacework <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) The Hague Appeal Conference a black mark on peace activism:

Here at Peacework (monthly AFSC publication) we wonder who Joan Russo is
and how to reach her. Can you help us, plese.  Thanks, Patricia Warson,
editor



- -
 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: Sat, 29 May 1999 06:03:46 -0400
From: Karl Grossman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) The Hague Appeal Conference a black mark on peace activism:

Dear Folks,
    Joan Russow is the national leader of the Green Party in Canada. Here is
her E-mail address: <[e-mail]>

                Karl Grossman

    At 09:57 AM 5/26/99 -0400, Peacework wrote:
>Here at Peacework (monthly AFSC publication) we wonder who Joan Russo is
>and how to reach her. Can you help us, plese.  Thanks, Patricia Warson,
>editor
>
>
>
>-
> 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: Sat, 29 May 1999 06:03:46 -0400
From: Karl Grossman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) The Hague Appeal Conference a black mark on peace activism:

Dear Folks,
    Joan Russow is the national leader of the Green Party in Canada. Here is
her E-mail address: <[e-mail]>

                Karl Grossman

    At 09:57 AM 5/26/99 -0400, Peacework wrote:
>Here at Peacework (monthly AFSC publication) we wonder who Joan Russo is
>and how to reach her. Can you help us, plese.  Thanks, Patricia Warson,
>editor
>
>
>
>-
> 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: Sat, 29 May 1999 15:05:32 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: (abolition-usa) Re: Walter Rockler: "...shouting "warcriminal" only emphasizes that those who...


  WAR CRIMES LAW APPLIES TO U.S. TOO

 By Walter J. Rockler. Walter J. Rockler, a Washington lawyer, was a
 prosecutor at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial.
 May 23, 1999
 WASHINGTON -- As justification for our murderously destructive bombing
 campaign in Yugoslavia, it is of course necessary for the U.S. to charge
that
 the Serbs have engaged in inhuman conduct, and that President Slobodan
 Milosevic, the head Serb demon, is a war criminal almost without peer.

 President Clinton assures us of this in frequent briefings, during which he
 engages in rhetorical combat with Milosevic. But shouting "war criminal"
only
 emphasizes that those who live in glass houses should be careful about
 throwing stones.

 We have engaged in a flagrant military aggression, ceaselessly attacking a
 small country primarily to demonstrate that we run the world. The rationale
 that we are simply enforcing international morality, even if it were true,
 would not excuse the military aggression and widespread killing that it
 entails. It also does not lessen the culpability of the authors of this
 aggression.

 As a primary source of international law, the judgment of the Nuremberg
 Tribunal in the 1945-1946 case of the major Nazi war criminals is plain and
 clear. Our leaders often invoke and praise that judgment, but obviously have
 not read it. The International Court declared:

 To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, 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.

 At Nuremberg, the United States and Britain pressed the prosecution of Nazi
 leaders for planning and initiating aggressive war. Supreme Court Justice
 Robert Jackson, the head of the American prosecution staff, asserted "that
 launching a war of aggression is a crime and that no political or economic
 situation can justify it." He also declared that "if certain acts in
 violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States
 does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down
a
 rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to
have
 invoked against us."

 The United Nations Charter views aggression similarly. Articles 2(4) and (7)
 prohibit interventions in the domestic jurisdiction of any country and
 threats of force or the use of force by one state against another. The
 General Assembly of the UN in Resolution 2131, "Declaration on the
 Inadmissibility of Intervention," reinforced the view that a forceful
 military intervention in any country is aggression and a crime without
 justification.

 Putting a "NATO" label on aggressive policy and conduct does not give that
 conduct any sanctity. This is simply a perversion of the North Atlantic
 Treaty Organization, formed as a defensive alliance under the UN Charter.
The
 North Atlantic Treaty pledged its signatories to refrain from the threat or
 use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United
 Nations, and it explicitly recognized "the primary responsibility of the
 Security Council (of the United Nations) for the maintenance of
international
 peace and security." Obviously, in bypassing UN approval for the current
 bombing, the U.S. and NATO have violated this basic obligation.

 From another standpoint of international law, the current conduct of the
 bombing by the United States and NATO constitutes a continuing war crime.
 Contrary to the beliefs of our war planners, unrestricted air bombing is
 barred under international law. Bombing the "infrastructure" of a country--
 waterworks, electricity plants, bridges, factories, television and radio
 locations--is not an attack limited to legitimate military objectives. Our
 bombing has also caused an excessive loss of life and injury to civilians,
 which violates another standard. We have now killed hundreds, if not
 thousands, of Serbs, Montenegrins and Albanians, even some Chinese, in our
 pursuit of humanitarian ideals.

 In addition to shredding the UN Charter and perverting the purpose of NATO,
 Clinton also has violated at least two provisions of the United States
 Constitution. Under Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, Congress, not
 the president, holds the power to declare war and to punish offenses against
 the law of nations. Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist No. 69 pointed out
 one difference between a monarchy and the presidency under the new form of
 government: A king could use his army as he pleased; the president would
have
 no such unlimited power. Under Article VI of the Constitution, treaties, far
 from being mere scraps of paper as we now deem them to be, are part of the
 supreme law of the United States. Of course, these days a supine Congress,
 fascinated only by details of sexual misconduct, can hardly be expected to
 enforce constitutional requirements.

 Nor can a great deal be expected from the media. Reporters rely on the
 controlled handouts of the State Department, Pentagon and NATO, seeing their
 duty as one of adding colorful details to official intimations of Serb
 atrocities. Thus, the observation of a NATO press relations officer that a
 freshly plowed field, seen from 30,000 feet up, might be the site of a
 massacre has been disseminated as news.

 The notion that humanitarian violations can be redressed with random
 destruction and killing by advanced technological means is inherently
 suspect. This is mere pretext for our arrogant assertion of dominance and
 power in defiance of international law. We make the non-negotiable demands
 and rules, and implement them by military force. It is all remindful of
 Henrik Ibsen's "Don't use that foreign word `ideals.' We have that excellent
 native word `lies.' "



- -
 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: Sat, 29 May 1999 15:05:38 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: (abolition-usa) NYT Ignores Violation of War Powers Act

In a message dated 5/29/99 12:07:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[e-mail] writes:

<< Subj:     jhurd_newparty: FAIR: NYT Ignores Violation of War Powers
Act
 Date:    5/29/99 12:07:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time
 From:    [e-mail] (David L. Wilson)
 Sender:    [e-mail]
 To:    [e-mail]

 FAIR ACTION ALERT:
 New York Times Ignores Violation of the War Powers Act

 May 28, 1999

 The indictment of Slobodan Milosevic for war crimes is the story of the
 day--the New York Times ran two front page pieces on it on the day the
 announcement was made (5/27/99). Of course, Milosevic's indictment is an
 important story for the American media to cover. But isn't it at least
 as important for the press to cover accusations that the U.S. president
 is conducting an illegal war?  That story has gotten virtually no
 mention in the Times.

 According to the War Powers Act of 1973, the president must "terminate
 any use of United States Armed Forces" within 60 days of the declaration
 of military action, unless he receives Congressional authorization to do
 otherwise. This period expired on May 25. Four days into what seems to
 be a clear violation of the law, the New York Times, considered to be
 "the paper of record," has not said a word about the expiration of the
 War Powers Act's deadline.

 Prior to the expiration of the 60 days, the Times' coverage of the issue
 was skimpy. One piece (4/29/99) obliquely touched on the issue,
 reporting that though Clinton promised to seek Congressional support for
 sending in ground troops, he would not seek  Congressional approval,
 since, as his spokesman, Joe Lockhart, said, "such a step would raise a
 host of constitutional questions."  Another article, titled "NATO Says
 New Bombing Is the Strongest Effort Yet," mentions in passing the suit
 filed by Tom Campbell and 16 other representatives against Bill Clinton
 for violating the War Powers Act (5/1/99).

 The only serious attention the Times gave to the issue was in a piece by
 Alison Mitchell called "Only Congress Can Declare War. Really. It's
 True," which ran in the "Week In Review" section (5/2/99). This article
 described the House's voting down of a resolution in support of the air
 war, by a 213-213 vote, as "a philosophical muddle devoid of practical
 effect."  In fact, the losing vote is an important element in Campbell's
 lawsuit, proof that Clinton does not have congressional approval for his
 military actions.

 But since the 60-day deadline expired, the Times has not so much as
 mentioned the War Powers Act.

 In notable contrast to the Times' silence, USA Today ran an editorial
 headlined "Again, Public Gets Bypassed" (5/25/99), which examined the
 history of the Act and concluded that the Clinton administration's
 refusal to abide by it is "an exceedingly risky policy that ignores both
 the ugly lesson of Vietnam and the Founders' warnings about the ease
 with which unconstrained kings spend lives."


 The War Powers Act, as USA Today noted, is designed to guarantee a
 fundamental democratic safeguard--that the people have a say, through
 their elected representatives, over whether or not the country goes to
 war. Clinton is the first president ever to violate the time limit
 provisions of the Act by keeping troops in combat without congressional
 authorization. Why isn't this news "fit to print?"


 ACTION:
 Please ask the New York Times to seriously address the implications of
 President Clinton's ongoing violation of the War Powers Act, and to
 cover the suit being brought against him by Tom Campbell and other
 representatives. You might also let USA Today know that you appreciate
 their coverage of the issue.

 New York Times
 229 W 43 St., New York, NY 10036
 Phone: [phone]
 Fax: [phone]
 mailto:[e-mail]

 USA Today
 1000 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22229
 Phone: [phone]
 Fax: [phone]
 mailto:[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: Sun, 30 May 1999 14:55:15 -0700
From: "David Crockett Williams" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Embrace Global Peace Walk 2000

Your embrace of Global Peace Walk 2000 can make a significant contribution
to the genuine cause of global peace, justice, environmental healing, and
prosperity for all.

To accomplish these goals we urge you to help us echo the prayer for "Global
Peace Now!" until this sound becomes the universal human resolve that can
actually achieve these goals by developing a comprehensive Global Culture of
Peace that integrates science, art, and spirituality (the highest form of
politics).

Since the political United Nations came to this Earth, war, crime, violence,
oppression, and belligerent confrontations have increased around the world.
Following the guidance of indigenous spiritual messengers like the late Hopi
Prophecy interpreter Thomas Banyacya, we must create a Spiritually United
Nations to end war and violence by correcting human thinking into harmony
with the Natural World Order.  To do this we must recognize that above any
perceived differences we are all human beings on this Mother Earth; male and
female, but only one human race.  We must redirect human activity away from
war and violence towards correcting environmental and social imbalances
before it becomes too late so save all life on Earth from increasing
disasters and weapons of mass destruction.

To recognize these facts, and to offer The Message of Peace to the people
and governments of the world, Global Peace Walk 2000 will be conducted from
San Francisco, California, on the January 15, 2000, Martin Luther King Jr.
birthday anniversary to New York City for the 55th United Nations
anniversary October 24, 2000.  On October 12, 2000, Columbus Day, GPW2000
will be in Washington, DC, to conduct a circle of hands ceremony, with
perhaps over a million people including world leaders, a ceremony to
rededicate the Washington Monument as a Symbol of The Message of Peace.

"Everyone must become a new Columbus or a new Jesus and together discover
the New World of Global Peace by recognizing that not only is this Earth a
globe but This Globe is our house and our altar -- and Real Love does make
this New World go around The Globe", says Rev. Yusen Yamato, initiator of
the Global Peace Walk project.  Rev. Yamato is a Buddhist monk and Zen
Shiatzu Meditation Practitioner who has brought from The East the ancient
knowledge of its culture of peace to share with those who have the
heart/mind to understand.  He has been networking with students, scientists,
artists, musicians, and with religious, cultural and spiritual leaders in
America over the past 25 years.  He introduced Thomas Banyacya to His
Holiness Dalai Lama on several occasions, one of which was followed by
the United Nations finally opening its door after 40 years to receive the
Hopi Prophecy and other indigenous peoples' messages for peace that
brought about the UN declaration of 1995-2004 as the International Decade
of the World's Indigenous Peoples.  He feels that to find the pathway to
true peace we must understand and respect the cultures, traditions and
ancient wisdom carried by the indigenous peoples and by the surviving
traditional and tribal cultures.

Please join us in supporting Global Peace Walk 2000 to unify all ways of
thinking in this unversal human resolve for "Global Peace Now!".  Since the
Global Peace Walk project was initiated in 1995 walking from New York City
to San Francisco for the United Nations 50th anniversary, we have received
numerous letters and proclamations of support from religious, political,
community and cultural leaders towards creation of a worldwide Global Peace
Zone 2000.  Please offer your support as well.

We will be posting and circulating your and/or your group's letters of
support for "Global Peace Now!" containing any survival issue messages
and will include these in the compiled messages for delivery to the
United States and United Nations governments and available to all.

We need:  More letters of support; walkers (local, long distance, branch
routes, etc.);  local, national, and cultural coordinators;  emailers,
webmasters, increasing computer and internet capabilities, telephoners,
publicity, writers, food, support vehicles, diesel mechanic, financial
support, and most of all your firm personal resolve for "Global Peace Now!"

Offerings may be made to Global Peace Walk at PO Box 170245, San Francisco,
CA 94117-0245, phone [phone], phone/fax [phone],
[e-mail]  (hardcopy flyers available, t-shirts, etc.)

Tax deductible contributions may be made at above address to Yucca
Foundation  [a 501(c)3 California Association, for the Spiritual Arts] and a
receipt with tax ID number will be sent by return mail upon request.

Please join our coordinators email group list at
http://www.egroups.com/list/global-peace-walk

For more information see interim Global Peace Walk site
http://www.angelfire.com/on/GEAR2000/gpw.html

Thank you very much.   Global Peace Now!

David Crockett Williams  <[e-mail]>
Coordinator, Global Peace Walk Project
Local Coordinator, Tehachapi, California, for
Global Peace Walk 2000
Global Emergency Alert Response
http://www.angelfire.com/on/GEAR2000


Some quotes from Global Peace Walk letters and proclamations of support:

"Global Peace Now is critical to the survival of the human race.
Collectively, we have been apathetic to the state of our neighbors and the
deteriorating condition of our Earth Mother for too long. Global Peace Now
is not just an invitation, it is a great cry for us to open our eyes and
ears, to use our heads and hands and create the kinds of change that will
save the planet and all who live and breathe upon Her",
- ----Leonard Peltier, American Indian Movement spiritual leader,
     U.S. political prisoner

"The U.N. enters its second half-century of service facing new opportunities
and challenges. If the nations of the world are to fully embrace these
opportunities and overcome challenges, we must work more closely together to
fully realize the principles of the original United Nations Charter and must
commit to improving the organization's efficiency and effectiveness. During
this momentous anniversary celebration, let us reaffirm the ideals,
principles, and goals contained in the Charter and rededicate ourselves to
working for the good of all humankind", ---President Bill Clinton

"...best wishes for a successful event", ---Vice President Al Gore

"...I send you my best wishes for a successful event in promoting  harmony
and peace for all people", ---Bill Richardson, US Representative to the
United Nations

"It is gratifying that the United Nations 50th Anniversary Global Peace Walk
'95 is committed to working for the realization of my husband's dream for a
beloved world community.  The great work that you are doing is an
inspiration to all of the King Center family", ---Coretta Scott King, CEO,
Martin Luther King Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change, Atlanta, GA

"We must all make a commitment to work for peace and for justice in our
world.  Your efforts demonstrate to the world, and remind us all here at La
Paz, that there is much work to be done...  You and the participants of the
Global Peace Now march are leading us all by standing up and taking the
right steps -- the steps toward peace and justice for everyone", ---Helen
Chavez (widow of Cesar Chavez), United Farm Workers Community
La Paz, Keene, California (near Tehachapi)

"Dr. King believed that hate destroys a person's sense of value and
objectivity.  His message was to stick to love, because hate is too great a
burden to bear.  Never lose sight of Dr. King's genius as you go forth to
educate, and as you gather and congregate.  Hope for us all continues to
thrive and to remain vitally alive because of the insight and selfless
efforts of dedicated persons like you", ---Rev. Jesse Jackson

"...today's local social issues are interconnected with many global issues
such as racism, sexism, religious intolerance, natural disasters, war,
health, environment, crime, violence, poverty, drugs; and...all over the
world people are fighting for land and life and looking for the Pathway to
Peace...the Global Peace Walk...[is]...offering the prayer of 'Global Peace
Now!' to demonstrate this universal human resolve as the pathway to Global
Peace Zone 2000", ---Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown

"...senseless loss of life, liberty and property can be eliminated once we
establish a vision of world peace in concurrence with nonviolent solutions
to world differences...we must rededicate ourselves to promote knowledge and
love, and to spread the message of 'Global Peace Now!'...the Global Peace
Walk seeks to unite the world in peace in the spirit of great inspirational
leaders such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.", ---San Francisco Mayor Willie
Brown

"On behalf of all New Yorkers, I ask you to convey throughout the world our
wish for peace.  May your physical and spiritual journey in pursuit of
global peace inspire the world's leaders", ---New York Mayor Giuliani

"As Governor of a diverse Commonwealth where people of various race, culture
and religion strive to cast aside differences and stand together as
Pennsylvanians, we join in helping you convey your message of peace,
prosperity and human value", ---Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge

"...as children of an interdependent world, we must always strive to settle
our differences without resorting to violence..."
- ---Mel Carnahan, Governor of Missouri

"Throughout our world, today, there is a plethora of tension and strife.
Far too many nations are preoccupied with civil unrest and military warfare.
However, senseless loss of life, liberty and property can be diminished once
mankind regains a vision of world peace.  I pray that your spiritual journey
touches the hearts and minds of our national leaders"
- ---Freeman R. Bosley Jr., Mayor of St. Louis, Missouri

"May the Great Spirit make us all conscious participants in this spiritual
journey to World Peace" ---Albert Hale, President, Navajo Nation

"Because of our belief in a true peace among all people of the world, in
spirit, we are participants to achieve this goal.  Welcome to the Hopi land,
may the great spirit be your guide as you continue through your
journey" ---Ferrell Secakuku, Chairman, Hopi Tribe

"As an artist I have always believed in world peace...keep peace in your
hearts for now and for all the future generations to come, for a peaceful
existence is the only way to ensure prosperity for the entire planet.  With
all of my love and blessings to all of humanity for their efforts toward
world peace." ---Peter Max













- -
 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 #134
***********************************

-
 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.