ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/abolition-usa/archive/v01.n203

Internet Message Format | 1999-10-22 | 44KB

From: [e-mail] (abolition-usa-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: abolition-usa-digest V1 #203
Reply-To: abolition-usa-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


abolition-usa-digest    Saturday, October 23 1999    Volume 01 : Number 203




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

Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 15:23:35 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: (abolition-usa) Re: Netherlands: NO!Scottish  Sheriff worried about her job/Trident2 Condemned

Please - I find out that my request not to get mail from Nukewatch and
JUSTWATCH was rejected because I'm not even on their lits. But I keep keeping
mail that you post to the, Francis.

The ONLY LISTS FROM WHICH I WANT MAIL in this chaotic situation are the two
Abolition lists.  God bless tp2000 - I don't know who or what it is - but
don't send me mail. God bless tploughshareds and much good work - but don't
send me mail. Ditto for Nuke Watch and JUSTWATCH.

If anyone at JUSTWATCH, NUKENET, a-days@motherearth, tp2000, and tploushares
knows how they can block mail to me I would offer up a special prayer of
thanks - and I don't even believe in God.

My next step in self defense will be to delete anything from FBOYLE which
would be a pity, because much of this is good and important. I want to keep
in touch - but not six bloody times on each event!

Peace and frustration,
David McReynolds

<< Subj:     Netherlands: NO!Scottish  Sheriff worried about her job/Trident2
Condemned
 Date:  10/22/99 12:08:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time
 From:  [e-mail] (Boyle, Francis)
 Sender:    [e-mail]
 To:    [e-mail] ('Ak Malten'), [e-mail] (Boyle,
Francis)
 CC:    [e-mail] ('TP2000'), [e-mail]
('[e-mail]'), [e-mail]
('[e-mail]'), [e-mail]
('Abolition Caucus List (E-mail)'), [e-mail]
('[e-mail]'), [e-mail]
('[e-mail]'), [e-mail]
('[e-mail]')

 Mailinglist 'Citizens Inspections to Prevent War Crimes'
 -------------------------------------------------------

 Dear Ak:
    Thanks for the words of support. I will be sure to send them to
 Scotland. Keep up your good work in the Netherlands. We need the Dutch
 People to throw out all the NATO Nukes.
 Best regards,
 Francis.

 -----Original Message-----
 From: Ak Malten [mailto:[e-mail]]
 Sent: Friday, October 22, 1999 10:58 AM
 To: Boyle, Francis
 Subject: Re: NO!Scottish Sheriff worried about her job/Trident2
 Condemned


 Dear Francis,

 congratulations with the Ploughshare 2000 success. Thank you for the work
 you have done to push for this, so far.

 Please send my greetings and support to Angie Zelter, Ulla Roder and
 Ellen Moxley and thank them for the hard work they have done and their
 endurance in the name of Peace. An enormous part of this success is theirs!

 If you would draft and send out a letter in support of
 Sheriff Margaret Gimblett I would not hesitate to sign it, but be happy
 to.

     It is my opinion Sheriff Margaret Gimblett did a great job upholding
     International Law!! With all my heart I thank her for doing so!!!!

     It would be a slam in the face of International Law if
     Sheriff Margaret Gimblett would loose her job, because of that fact.

 Ak Malten,

 Global Anti-Nuclear Alliance

 ---original message follows---
 At 08:45 22-10-99 -0500, you wrote:
 >Mailinglist 'Citizens Inspections to Prevent War Crimes'
 >-------------------------------------------------------
 >
 >Dear Friends:
 >  As I said before, Sheriff Margaret Gimblett is one of the very best
 >judges i have ever appeared before since i did my first anti-nuclear case
 in
 >the spring of 1982. She is very bright, very professional and very
 >courageous. I submit that we must ALL mobilize to her support and make it
 >very clear to the  British Establishment that the ENTIRE WORLD  wants her
 to
 >keep her job.
 >Francis A. Boyle
 >Professor of International Law
 >
 >
 >-----Original Message-----
 >From: Scottish CND [mailto:[e-mail]]
 >Sent: Friday, October 22, 1999 4:54 AM
 >To: Multiple recipients of list
 >Subject: Sheriff worried about her job
 >
 >
 >Sheriff Margaret Gimblett has said that she is worried about her job after
 >her historic decision about Trident on 21 October.  In an exclusive
 >interview with the Scottish Express from her home on the Isle of Bute she
 >said:
 >
 >"I have the highest respect for these CND women, but I myself am not a CND
 >supporter: I am totally apolitical.  I am rather worried about my job after
 >this.  I certainly won't be expecting a mention in the Queens Honours
 list."
 >
 >
 >
 >

 ---end---


 =============================================================
   The Global Anti-Nuclear Alliance (GANA) -- is a member of
   The Abolition 2000 Network, A Global Network to Eliminate
   Nuclear Weapons

 Address: c/o Ak Malten
         Irisstraat 134          Tel:[phone]
         2565TP The Hague        Fax:[phone]
         The Netherlands         E-Mail: [e-mail]

 GANA's website:

        http://www.cornnet.nl/~akmalten/welcome.html

 The ICJ Advisory Opinion on Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons,
  **including ALL the Separate Opinions of ALL the Judges**,
     the Canberra Report, the CTBT Text and Protocol,
          the NPT text and the 1925 Gas Protocol,
               the Nuremberg Principles and
    the MODEL Nuclear Weapons Convention can be found at:

        http://www.cornnet.nl/~akmalten/docs.html
 =============================================================

  >>

- -
 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, 22 Oct 1999 15:03:41 -0400
From: Peace through Reason <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) NSP Hearing Minnesota

ANNOUNCEMENT:

The Minnesota Court of Appeals will hold a Hearing on Northern States
Power Company's attempt to bypass the state law limiting  storage of
Spent nuclear fuel on October 26, 1999 at 11:40 AM, in  Courtroom 200 in

the Minnesota Judicial Center, 25 Constitution  Ave., St. Paul, MN.

BACKGROUND:

Northern States Power Co is still struggling to somehow bypass  the
strict limits placed upon its ability to store toxic spent  nuclear fuel

outside its Prairie Island Plant.  These are limits  it agreed to in
1994 in order to convince the Minnesota  Legislature to allow it to
store any at all outside the plant. The limits in the law were designed
to encourage NSP to seek  sources of energy other than nuclear.  They
gave NSP time to do  this since they allowed enough storage to let
Prairie run for  another six or seven years, time for NSP to develop
other sources.

But NSP has spent that time not in developing plans for  alternative
energy, but in trying to get around the 1994 law.

Their latest attempt was to write into their resource  plan a scheme to
use up the safety margin for spent fuel storage  in the plant storage
facility.  This would give them an addition  2 or 3 years of operation
but would eventually require them to  use more outside storage casks
when the plant shuts down.  This  is clearly against the letter and the
intent of the 1994 law.

Since the PUC agreed to let NSP get away with this there was no  other
choice but to ask the Minnesota Court of Appeals to  overturn the PUC
decision.

The North American Water Office initiated this action last June and,
after a number of attempts by NSP to delay it, oral  arguments are set
for October 26, 1999 at 12:10 pm in Courtroom  200 in the Minnesota
Judicial Center, 25 Constitution Avenue in  St Paul.

The decision in this case will determine what kind of  organization will

be required to carry on the opposition to nuclear power.  All those
interested in the advocacy of a sustainable world are invited.

For More information, please contact:

Bruce A Drew
Prairie Island Coalition
4425 Abbott Avenue South
Minneapolis MN 55410-1444
Phone: [phone]
Fax:  [phone]
Email: [e-mail]


- --
John Bailey
Institute for Local Self-Reliance
1313 Fifth St. SE
Minneapolis, MN  55414
E-mail:  [e-mail]
ILSR Home Page:  http://www.ilsr.org/
Sustainable MN:   http://www.me3.org/



____________________________________________________________

* 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: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 12:55:49 -0500
From: "Boyle, Francis" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Trident2 Condemned in Scotland!BBC:CND campaigners walk free

- -----Original Message-----
From: MichaelP [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 1999 12:48 PM
To: unlikely.suspects
Subject: CND campaigners walk free


As you will see from the context - this relates to a proceeding in a
Scottish court where the judges are called "Sheriff".

Cheers
 MichaelP

================
BBC  October 21

CND campaigners walk free

The Trident programme has cost millions of pounds A sheriff has allowed
three anti-nuclear activists to walk free on charges of damaging a Trident
nuclear submarine after she said the weapons were illegal under
international law.

The CND campaigners were accused of attacking a barge and laboratory
equipment at the Faslane Naval Base near Lochgoilhead, Argyll.

But a jury at Greenock Sheriff Court was ordered to acquit the women after
Sheriff Margaret Gimblett ruled they had a right to "disarm" the base.

The three women, Angela Zelter, 48, Ellen Moxley, 45, and Bodil Ulla
Roder, 45, who is Danish, faced three charges of maliciously damaging
equipment at the base.

There were cheers and applause as the women walked free from the court
after the trial which has lasted four and a half weeks.

They had been held on remand at Cornton Vale Women's Prison since their
arrest at the Clydeside base on 8 June.

The women were arrested after boarding a barge which was part of the
Trident installation.

They had been charged with maliciously damaging the vessel called Maytime,
stealing two inflatable life rafts and damaging equipment in an on-board
laboratory.

'Acting to prevent a crime'

The equipment was thrown overboard into Loch Goil before they were
arrested by Ministry of Defence police.

But Sheriff Gimblett said she accepted the argument put forward by defence
advocate John Mayer who said Trident was illegal under international law
and the women were acting simply to prevent a crime.

Mr Mayer said a ruling by the International Court of Justice in 1996 made
Trident and all nuclear weapons illegal.

This meant the women had basically committed a crime but were acting to
prevent other crimes taking place and so in Scots law should be acquitted,
he told the court.

'Be very careful'

Addressing the activists after the jury had delivered a formal verdict,
the sheriff told them they should not regard this as meaning they would be
able to carry out such actions recklessly.

"Yesterday I made it clear that the courts do not allow crimes to be
committed to prevent other crimes except in very special circumstances,"
she said.

"There were such circumstances in this particular case and the same
circumstances may not apply to anyone who carries out actions similar to
those carried out at Maytime in June.


=================================


*** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for research and educational
purposes. ***





- -
 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, 23 Oct 1999 12:06:28 -0400
From: ASlater <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: [y2k-nuclear] Y2K AND THE WORLD'S NUCLEAR SYSTEMS: THE DEADLIEST GAMBLE IN HISTOR

Dear Friends,
The full page ad below appeared in the New York Times yesterday, organized=
 by
Helen Caldicott.  Please distribute it widely.  We are looking into
reprints so
that it can be run in local newspapers, newsletters, etc.  Alice Slater

>>To: [e-mail]
>Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail]
>From: [e-mail] ([e-mail])
>
>
>_____________________________________________________________
>
>
>        The New York Times, Friday October 22nd, 1999
>
>        Y2K AND THE WORLD'S NUCLEAR SYSTEMS:
>
>               THE DEADLIEST GAMBLE IN HISTORY
>
>_____________________________________________________________
>
>
>The most critical Y2K crisis we face - its potential impact on the world's
>nuclear weapons and power plants - has been obscured by news media
>focusing only on the trivial and sensational. There has been a surprising
>lack of skepticism in reporting official reassurances that "the problem is
>being addressed" and the public won't be at risk on January 1, 2000.
>The net effect has been to lull nearly everyone into complacency.
>
>It has also inhibited responsible scientists, politicians, and government
>officials who have credible and alarming concerns about Y2K. They haven't
>spoken out more forcefully because they fear ridicule and humiliation in
>the
>present media climate. But among their peers, in professional journals, and
>even in Congressional hearings, they raise grave questions about the
>profound - and unnecessary - risk we face.
>
>Every historical and environmental disaster in the 20th century might well
>have been avoided, in retrospect, if people had acted differently at the
>critical moment when danger became clear. That moment is now.
>
>_____________________________________________________________
>
>
>"Probably one out of five days I wake up in a cold sweat thinking [Y2K] is
>much bigger than we think, and then the other four days I think maybe we
>really are on top of it. Everything is so interconnected, it's hard to know
>with any precision whether we have got it fixed."
>
>- U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre
>
>_____________________________________________________________
>
>
>Less than three months before Jan. 1, 2000, hundreds of thermonuclear
>missiles and atomic reactors remain vulnerable to "Y2K bugs." These bugs,
>the basic glitches that arise because many computers cannot tell the
>difference between the years 1900 and 2000, lurk among millions of embedded
>chips and software. When we enter the new millennium, many computer systems
>all over the world will undoubtedly fail, inducing chaos in some countries
>and minor dislocations in others.
>
>The one industry that must not be allowed to fail is the nuclear industry.
>Yet no precautions now being taken in the world's nuclear arsenals and
>nuclear power plants are enough to prevent the possibility of catastrophe.
>
>
>Y2K Risks in Nuclear Weapons
>
>4400 nuclear weapons both in Russia and America are on hair trigger alert,
>ready to be "launched on warning" by a combination of possible inaccurate
>computer data componded by the likelihood of human error. There is a very
>real danger that Y2K will multiply the false hostile launch reports which
>have in the past brought both Russian and U.S. forces within minutes of
>launching before the mistake is discovered.
>
>Russia has only recently acknowledged that its military systems have Y2K
>problems, and its deteriorating economic condition woefully limits any
>meaningful fix. Many of Russia's nuclear weapons computer systems were
>stolen from the U.S. The Pentagon's efforts to find their own problems are
>behind schedule. The reassurances we've received to date are unacceptable,
>because the Pentagon - which has the largest and most complicated
>interfacing computer systems in the world - has not been open and honest
>about its Y2K problems.
>
>A recent decision by the U.S. and Russia to establish a joint early warning
>room does not obviate the potentially dangerous situation inherent in the
>hardware, software and embedded chips in both countries' early warning
>systems. It is a palliative measure, but not a cure.
>
>The only sure way to prevent the mistaken launch of nuclear missiles is to
>de-alert the nuclear warheads, disabling the weapons systems.
>
>Currently, all other nuclear weapons states are in de-alert status,
>guaranteeing that these weapons cannot be launched by computer or
>human error.
>
>
>Y2K Risks in Nuclear Power Plants
>
>We are also gambling with our nuclear power systems. 433 nuclear power
>plants worldwide are at risk - 103 in the U.S. alone. France, the nation
>most heavily dependent on nuclear plants, is so uncertain of its nuclear
>safety that it plans to shut down all its nuclear facilities except the
>nuclear power plants during the week of January 1, 2000.
>
>While Y2K can pose a danger to routine reactor control systems, the major
>risk involves a power blackout engulfing the plant, failure of back-up
>generating systems, loss of cooling, and meltdown - the consequences of
>which, within the space of one or two hours, could match the Chernobyl
>disaster.
>
>Compared to Y2K's military risks, it seems relatively straightforward to
>ensure that reliable reactor emergency cooling systems are ready for Y2K
>blackouts. Thirty-five U.S. nuclear power plants are not yet in compliance
>less than three months before Jan. 1, 2000. The Y2K status of hundreds of
>other power and research reactors around the world are unknown.
>
>There is still time. There are still solutions.
>
>If the computer systems which now restrain nuclear technology cannot be
>relied on to perform within acceptable parameters during the Y2K period -
>then people must intervene. Less than three months before Y2K we face a
>frightening vacuum in political leadership. The rest of us must act.
>President Clinton and other leaders will take action only if you do.
>
>
>CALL, FAX AND EMAIL PRESIDENT CLINTON DEMANDING THAT HE:
>
>1. Negotiate an agreement with President Yeltsin that all 2400 U.S. and
>    2000 Russian nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert be "de-alerted"
>    before January 1, 2000.
>
>2. Mobilize the deployment of the required number of reliable emergency
>    back up electrical generators at every nuclear reactor in the world.
>
>Telephone:  [phone]
>
>Fax:  [phone]
>
>Email:  [e-mail]
>
>_____________________________________________________________
>
>
>This emergency statement, based on the latest reports concerning Y2K and
>the nuclear sector, is endorsed by the following concerned experts and
>citizens. Among them are eminent physicists who played key roles in the
>earliest development of nuclear weapons systems.
>
>Sir Joseph Rotblat
>Nobel Peace Laureate
>
>Philip Morrison
>Physicist, Institute Professor (Emeritus), MIT
>
>George M. Woodwell
>Biologist, Director, The Woods Hole Research Center
>
>Ted Taylor
>Nuclear Physicist - Los Alamos Labs 1949-1957,
>Staff Member, Theoretical division responsible for design of new
>nuclear weapons
>
>Ira Helfand
>MD, Co-Founder and Past President - Physicians for Social Responsibility
>
>Mary Olson
>Nuclear Waste Specialist - Nuclear Information and Resource Service
>
>Helen Caldicott, MD
>Founding President - Physicians foer Social Responsibility,
>Founder - Women's Action for Nuclear Disarmament
>
>Ian Prior, MD
>Wellington Medical School, New Zealand,
>Past Secretary, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War
>
>Barry S. Levy, MD, MPH
>Adjunct Professor of Community Health, Tufts University School of Medicine
>
>James Riccio
>Staff Attorney - Public Citizen's Critical Mass
>
>Patch Adams, MD
>
>(Affiliations for identification only)
>
>_____________________________________________________________
>
>
>For further updated information and analysis, go to the following websites:
>
>http://www.y2kwash.org
>
>http://www.basicint.org
>
>http://www.trendmonitor.com/y2kad.htm
>
>
>For inquiries email <[e-mail]> or write:
>Dr. Helen Caldicott, Y2K Nuclear Alert Campaign, 466 Green Street,
>Suite 300, San Francisco CA 94133.
>
>_____________________________________________________________
>
>
>The November edition of 'The Ecologist' magazine will focus exclusively on
>the legacy of nuclear energy - arguably the most poisonous industry in
>human history. For your copy, send a check or postal order for $6 to:
>
>The Ecologist
>1920 Martin Luther King Jr Way
>Berkeley
>CA 94709
>USA
>
>UK (=A34) and Europe (=A35) orders to:
>
>The Ecologist
>Unit 18
>Chelsea Wharf
>15 Lots Road
>London SW10 0QJ
>UK
>
>
>The special edition will be displayed in full by mid-November at:
>http://www.gn.apc.org/ecologist
>
>
>We encourage you to reproduce and distribute this ad.
>
>______________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Java or juggling?.  Everybody learns something at Learn2.com.  Where
>you'll find thousands of free 2torials, affordable online courses, and
>useful tips for everyday life.  http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/1246
>
>
>eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/y2k-nuclear
>http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
> =20
Alice Slater
Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE)
15 East 26th Street, Room 915
New York, NY 10010
tel:  [phone]
fax:  [phone]
email:  [e-mail]

GRACE is a member of Abolition 2000, a global network working for a treaty=
 to
eliminate nuclear weapons.=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: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 14:03:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) SPACE PRESENTATION AT UN

 Presentation at UN

=09A packet of information was distributed to UN delegates and others in
attendance as this presentation was made containing pages of the documents
referred to in the speech, the brochure of the Global Network Against
Weapons & Nuclear Power In Space and a Global Network statement entitled
"Offensive Plans for Space Domination." For copies of that packet, contact
Karl Grossman at <[e-mail]>=20

                              Karl Grossman
     Professor, State University of New York, College at Old Westbury
     Convenor, Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
Member, Commission on Disarmament Education, Conflict Resolution and Peace
  of the International Association of University Presidents and the United
                                 =09=09=09=09=09Nations

            Statement at the United Nations  October 21, 1999
=09
=09We have only a narrow window to prevent an arms race in space. The key i=
s
an international pact to ban all weapons in space, the original intent of
the Outer Space Treaty.  As Secretary-General Kofi Annan told the
Conference on Disarmament on January 26th of this year: space must be
maintained "as a weapons-free environment."=20
=09We must all work together-and time is of the essence-to keep it that way=
=2E
=09The military of the United States of America is seeking-in the words of
its Space Command-to "control space" and the Earth below. It desires to
deploy weapons in space. The U.S. plans are explicitly laid out in various
U.S. government documents.=20
=09These include the "Vision For 2020" report of the U.S. Space Command.
Here's its cover depicting a laser weapon shooting a beam down from space
zapping a target below.=20
=09And, the report proclaims in wording laid out like in the start of the
Star Wars movies: "US Space Command-dominating the space dimension of
military operations to protect US interests and investment. Integrating
Space Forces into warfighting capabilities across the full spectrum of
conflict."=20
=09"Vision for 2020" compares the U.S. effort to control space and the Eart=
h
below to how centuries ago "nations built navies to protect and enhance
their commercial interests" by ruling the seas.
=09"Guardians of the High Frontier" calls space the "ultimate `high ground.=
'"
 It proudly displays a Space Command motto: "Master of Space." =20
=09"It's politically sensitive, but it's going to happen," General Joseph
Ashy, commander-in-chief of the U.S. Space Command, has said. "Some people
don't want to hear this, and it sure isn't in vogue, but-absolutely-we're
going to fight in space. We're going to fight from space and we're going to
fight into space=85.That's why the U.S. has development programs in directe=
d
energy and hit-to-kill mechanisms."
=09General Ashy spoke of "space control," the U.S. military's term for
control of space, and "space force application," its definition of control
of Earth from space.  "We'll expand into these two missions," he said,
"because they will become increasingly important.  We will engage
terrestial targets someday-ships, airplanes, land targets-from space. We
will engage targets in space, from space."
=09Far more than rhetoric is involved. Last year, a multi-million dollar
contract was signed for a "Space-Based Laser Readiness Demonstrator."
Here's the military's poster for this laser showing it firing its ray in
space while a U.S. flag somehow waves in space above it.=20
=09Billions of dollars are being poured into what is now called U.S.
Ballistic Missile Defense. Missile defense? In context, what the U.S.
military appears to seek is largely to "control" and "dominate," not defend=
=2E
=09"With regard to space dominance, we have it, we like it, and we're going
to keep it," Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Air Force for Space Keith
Hall, also director of the National Reconnaissance Office, has stated.
=09This article this month in the Albuquerque Journal begins: "U.S. militar=
y
commanders are beginning to consider space as important an environment for
war as they do land, sea and air."
=09"New World Vistas: Air And Space Power For The 2lst Century" states: "In
the next two decades, new technologies will allow the fielding of
space-based weapons of devastating effectiveness to be used to deliver
energy and mass as force projection in tactical and strategic
conflict=85These advances will enable lasers with reasonable mass and cost =
to
effect very many kills."=20
=09Such weapons will likely be nuclear-powered. Because "power limitations
impose restrictions" on space weapons systems making them "relatively
unfeasible=85.A natural technology to enable high power," New World Vistas
says, "is nuclear power in space=85.Setting the emotional issues of nuclear
power aside, this technology offers a viable alternative for large amounts
of power in space."
=09The arming of the heavens is what we face-unless we stop it now.
=09Said Wang Xiaoyu, First Secretary of the Delegation of China to the
Conference on Disarmament, at a seminar at the UN in Geneva on March 11 on
"Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space" organized by the Women's
International League for Peace and Freedom:
=09"Outer space is the common heritage of human beings. It should be used
entirely for peaceful purposes and for the economic, scientific, and
cultural development of all countries as well as the well-being of mankind.
It must not be weaponized and become another arena of the arms race."
=09The following day, at the plenary meeting of the Conference on
Disarmament, Li Changhe, Ambassador for Disarmament Affairs of China,
formally proposed reactivation of the ad hoc committee on Prevention of an
Arms Race in Outer Space and having it "negotiate and conclude an
international legal instrument banning the test, deployment and use of any
weapons, weapon system and their components in outer space, with a view to
preventing the weaponization of outer space."
=09China received wide support from other nations on the motion. I am
embarassed and chagrined to say that then and since, the U.S. has been
blocking the call to activate the committee on PAROS.
=09Having space weapons-free was, in fact, the original intent of the Outer
Space Treaty of 1967, says Craig R. Eisendrath, a former U.S. State
Department official who helped create the treaty.
=09Dr. Eisendrath told a workshop I led on weapons-in-space issues at the
Hague Appeal for Peace Conference this June that it was in the wake of the
Soviet launching of its Sputnik satellite in 1957 that the U.S. sought to
"de-weaponize" space-before it got weaponized. The State Department, he
explained, used the Antarctica Treaty as a model for the Outer Space Treaty=
=2E
=09The Outer Space Treaty, the fundamental international law on space,
initiated by the U.S., United Kingdom and former Soviet Union and now
signed by 91 nations, declaring that space shall be used "for peaceful
purposes" and the "exploration and use of outer space=85shall be carried ou=
t
for the benefit and in the interest of all countries," ended up banning
"nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction" in spac=
e.=20
=09It's high time we return to its original intent.
=09We have only a brief span of time dto do so.
=09For if the U.S. moves forward with its military plans for space, other
nations will follow. George Friedman, co-author of this book, "The Future
of War: Power, Technology & American World Dominance in the 2lst
Century"-yes, "American World Dominance in the 2lst Century"-claims that
the U.S. can control the Earth for many years ahead because of its
technological space prowess. Other nations-he names Russia, Japan and
China-are just "passing blips," he says, "to compete with the U.S."=20
=09I've been to Russia; I've been to Japan; I've been to China. They are no=
t
passing technological "blips." If the United States moves to utilize space
as the "ultimate high ground" militarily, to weaponize the heavens, other
nations will follow-leading to a new arms race and ultimately war in space.
=09The people of the world must join with U.S. citizens to stop this move a=
nd
all of us, together, work-as Secretary-General Annan said in January-"to
codify principles which can ensure that outer space remains weapons-free."
=09=09=09=09=09***
=09Karl Grossman, full professor of journalism at the State University of N=
ew
York/College at Old Westbury, has specialized in investigative reporting
for 30 years. Books he has authored include "The Wrong Stuff: The Space
Program's Nuclear Threat To Our Planet" (Common Courage Press). He is
writer and narrator of the video documentaries "Nukes In Space: The
Nuclearization and Weaponization of the Heavens" and "Nukes In Space 2:
Unacceptable Risks" (EnviroVideo, Box 311, Fort Tilden, N.Y. 11965). He is
a charter member of the Commission on Disarmament Education, Conflict
Resolution and Peace. He is convenor as well as a founder of the Global
Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space. Address: Karl Grossman,
Box 1680, Sag Harbor, N.Y. 11963  [phone]   Fax: [phone]
E-Mail: [e-mail] =20
=09To reach the Global Network, telephone [phone] or E-Mail:
[e-mail]   Its Web Site is: http://www.globenet.free-online.co.uk/










=09





- -
 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, 23 Oct 1999 15:29:28 -0500
From: "Boyle, Francis" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Trident2 Condemned in Scotland: Trial account am 20 Oct

- -----Original Message-----
From: Scottish CND [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Saturday, October 23, 1999 1:30 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Trial account am 20 Oct


GREENOCK SHERIFF COURT 20 OCT

The following is an account of what was said in the morning of 20 Oct

In the afternoon the sheriff gave her conclusion which acquitted the three
accused and said the threat to use Trident was illegal.   The first part of
the John Mayers speech is not yet available.

John Mayer -

...

My colleague will address the issue of distinguishing vandalism and
malicious mischief. For myself, it is impossible for an accused in a
Scottish court to be seen by the court as both being in the right, jus
causa, and at the same time, on the same issue, the same charges, in the
wrong. Where an accused pleads a right to act in the way liabled it is for
the crown, upon whom the onus of proof lies throughout the trial, to rebut
successfully, not just allude in the eyes of the judge, rebut the right or
understanding. If one reasonably thought they had the right, it is for the
crown to rebut that reasonableness. The crown have alluded, but the crown
have come a long way from succeeding in rebutting; my friend (PF) seemed to
be addressing the willfulness of the actions liabled but not the
maliciousness. Indeed he seemed to concede the purpose, albeit saying it was
misguided. He conceded saying the way the women acted and didn't act ... .
He did not rebut the lawful presumption required of him. That leaves the
first opportunity to say -

The accused having raised their right or reasonableness to act as they did,
there being no rebuttal, that remains standing. It is now my formal motion
that your ladyship acquit the accused because not to do so:

Firstly, would be wrong in law. Accused persons should not sit in a dock one
minute more than the law requires.

Secondly, not to acquit and to allow the jury to consider would run the risk
of conviction. It cannot be that accused persons are in the right in the law
and can be wrong in the eyes of the jury.

John McLaughlin - I would associate myself with the motion and also move to
view that

A right and or reasonable excuse has been placed before the court and an
onus placed on the court to rebut.

The case starts and finishes on the question of malice. In this case, in
law, there is no malice. In the Helen John case there was no ruling on
reasonable excuse or the international law defence. In this case there are
these defences.

What is malice ? Gordon section 1 says mens rea can be defined as "a legally
reprehensible state of mind". Reprehensibility is a moral criteria. In
Section 7.31 the word "spiteful" is critical in this context. Gordon Chapter
22 deals with property. Hume is about the right to vindicate a property
situation. We don't have to deal with property rights, because here it is
not to do with property but with a crime being committed.

(referring to case McDougall ? SCCL 1985 ?) This was dealing with a summary
prosecution. With regard to reasonable excuse the crown had not demonstrated
that this excuse was not reasonable. In his comment Sheriff Gordon raises
the question of the application to the common law crime of malicious
mischief and the answer has to be yes.

When the charge of vandalism was introduced it was felt that this overlapped
with malicious mischief. Black against Allan was a summary charge. The
offence of vandalism was not just an echo of malicious mischief, the
difference between vandalism and malicious mischief was "malice" in the
common law charge and "recklessness". "Recklessness" being wider than
"malice". It did not deal with other aspects of difference except intention.

In England there is an onus on the crown to rebut reasonable excuse or
international law crime and there would be one or more crown experts to
rebut. The crown knew this line would be adopted from submissions and the
list of witnesses.

In England that is the position, and at summary level in Scotland. At solemn
level in Scotland it is unclear, but the onus has to shift to the crown. The
accused may be prejudiced because of the level of damage caused, this cannot
be the case.

This is the first time the accused have presented a comprehensive defence
case. Helen John was a summary case, reasonable excuse and the international
law defence had not been established.

My lady has heard evidence on this and it is for her to decide, not the
jury. I submit that the defence has presented the international law case.

Sheriff Gimblett then asked Angie Zelter if she wished to associate herself
with the motion and she said she did. The court was then adjourned.

PF - The defence are asking my lady to remove the jury from their duty to
decide whether defences have been made out.

The defence are saying "our clients have a defence of international law, the
crown have not rebutted, therefore the crown have not demonstrated the
malicious mischief charges were carried out maliciously". Not that the
defence of necessity has been made and not rebutted.

Therefore I remark on the international law defence, in Gordon with regard
to mens rea and malicious mischief "malicious mischief can be committed
willfully and the .. damage inflicted intentionally or recklessly." In this
case damage was inflicted intentionally.

It seems to be thought that malice was like spite. In the case of William
Reid the case was dismissed because the damage was done with a view to
increasing the accused's claim and therefore is not described as malicious.
Gordon says this must be regarded as wrong.

Clark vs Sime ... In Archibald Thomson the conviction was sustained without
malicious intention.

The submission presupposes that the international law defence has been made
and I would dispute this. With regard to the ICJ opinion of 1996 there is a
requirement to establish that if this is international law it applies to
Scottish Courts. Morgensson vs Peters was a fishing issue about whether
Scots law could be applied outwith the 3 mile limit.

Matters of international law have to be applied by statute or to have
judicial authority. The Genocide Act 1969 and the Geneva Convention Act 1957
had to be introduced by statute to bring the treaties into effect of law. In
the Pinochet case it was said that he couldn't have been extradited until
the relevant international law came into effect by being incorporated into
statute.

(PF also referred to how EC regulations has to be introduced by statute)

The crown do not require to prove malice for theft.

Angie Zelter - Customary international law is binding in Scottish courts.
Statutes do not mean that the whole body of international law does not apply
in Scottish courts. It is of key importance that countries are bound by
international law.

John Mayer - My friend (PF) says the international law applied has not been
incorporated - so what ? The purpose of the Genocide Act and the Geneva
Conventions Act was to give teeth to the authorities in the UK to deal with
those who transgressed, gross breaches. The main purpose was mechanical, not
substantial.

Lord Murrays article p 143 - "in so far as they consist of customary
international law they are part of the law of this country" - from the St
Petersburg Declaration to the Geneva Convention Protocol I. Ratification of
Protocol I gave the force of law in this country to that Protocol.

My friend (PF) is saying he is not required to prove malice, then why is the
word malicious in the indictment ? He says it is redundant. It is not. Clark
vs Sime - it is not the High Court which has misunderstood this it is my
friend (PF). If there were doubt Lord Hardie and his predecessors would have
identified this everyday matter and would have altered their formulation of
indictments to include "or" instead of "and". The crown has never in my
experience amended these words.

The crown requires to prove the charges.

John McLaughlin - Without malice there is no crime in Scots law. Malice is
essential in this case. My friend (PF) is not distinguishing between solemn
and summary cases and therefore I assume he is not disputing this. Clark vs
Sime is about property, here we are talking about preventing a crime.

The only way the crown can rebut Professor Boyle is to lead evidence
against.

It would be unsatisfactory for matters of international law to go to the
jury to decide. There is no expert who says international law does not apply
in Scots courts. In the Helen John case the High Court has regard to the
effect of the ICJ opinion. I would adopted Ms Zelters statement that
customary international law is binding in the UK without having to be
adopted by statute.

The war crimes tribunals in Nuremberg, Yugoslavia and Rwanda are based on
customary international law.

Nuremberg is the basis, this is part of customary law and is binding.

The ICJ decision is applicable and is binding. Lord Murrays article p127 -
"The British judge, Dame Rosalyn Higgins pointed out that 95 per cent of the
courts decisions have been implemented .. an advisory opinion .. is not to
be disregarded because you disagree .." Michael Quinlan dismisses the ICJ
opinion as advisory. On the basis of what Professor Boyle says that is
wrong. The Strategic Defence Review says the ICJ opinion of 1996 is not
binding. Lord Murray says of it "at the very least it is authoritative".

This is customary international law, not like EC regulations. It is clear
that this law does apply in Scots courts.

International law and reasonable excuse are not points to be decided by the
jury. The onus is on the crown to have experts to rebut the defence
arguments.

The international law defence is a reasonable excuse defence.

With regard to the alternative charge 4, the whole indictment should be
knocked out, including the alternative charge. It is like the women taking a
knife off a person - if they are acquitted on malicious damage it would be
odd not to have them acquitted of theft.



- -
 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 #203
***********************************

-
 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.