ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/abolition-usa/archive/v01.n209

Internet Message Format | 1999-10-29 | 41KB

From: [e-mail] (abolition-usa-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: abolition-usa-digest V1 #209
Reply-To: abolition-usa-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


abolition-usa-digest    Saturday, October 30 1999    Volume 01 : Number 209




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

Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 14:15:05 +0100
From: Sally light <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) US Campaign, Re: Urgent Ward Valley alert! and Wall of Denial

Ellen -  Get in touch with Greenaction at [phone], or BAN Waste at (415)
752-8678, or the Ft. Mohave Indian Tribal Council at [phone] re:
possible flyers, etc.

All the best,

Sally Light
Nuclear Program Analyst
Tri-Valley CAREs

Ellen Thomas wrote:

> Re two urgent action items:  Save Ward Valley, and Wall of Denial
>
> 1) It's disturbing to see the Ward Valley success so quickly being
> undermined.  Those feds don't give up.  I called the Department of Interior
> number in D.C.--[phone]--as soon as I read the Save Ward Valley
> message; there's an all-night answering machine.  It helps to have an
> article or other document to refer to/read from when talking.
>
> 2) The Wall of Denial is going up this week (November 2-9) -- if Ward
> Valley folks will send us a flier to post or paint on the wall, we'll draw
> people's attention to it.  Proposition One will be "hosting" the Wall on
> November 4th, so anyone else who can't be at the Wall and have a no-nukes
> flier to post, send it as an attachment, and we'll print and paste it up on
> the Wall.
>
> Ellen Thomas
>
> PROPOSITION ONE COMMITTEE
> P.O. Box 27217, Washington, DC 20038 USA
> 202-462-0757 (phone) | 202-265-5389 (fax)
> http://prop1.org | [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.





- -
 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, 29 Oct 1999 13:56:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Nuclear Age Peace Foundation <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) UNITED NATIONS LAUNCHES MILLENNIUM ASSEMBLY WEB

Dear abolitionists - On coordinating committee calls, it has been suggested
that A2000 should be planning for millenium events at UN as well as NPT
Review Conference. Here is some basic info about the UN events, along with
a website. I am told the website as of yet has little information. The
office referred to is at 866 UN Plaza. Here at the Lawyers' Committee on
Nuclear Policy, we will keep you advised of further info re these events. -
John Burroughs

22 October 1999  Press Release GA/9640 PI/1190
UNITED NATIONS LAUNCHES MILLENNIUM ASSEMBLY WEB SITE AT
HTTP://WWW.UN.ORG/MILLENNIUM
19991022

The United Nations is launching today a new Web site for the Millennium
Assembly and Millennium Summit it will hold next year. The United Nations
General Assembly decided to designate its fifty-fifth session, which will
open on 5 September 2000, as ôThe Millennium Assembly of the United
Nationsö.

The Millennium Summit, which is likely to be the largest gathering of heads
of State or government ever held, will consider challenges facing the
United Nations in the new century and how best to meet them. It will open
on 6 September 2000 at United Nations Headquarters in New York.

For Secretary-General Kofi Annan, the Millennium Assembly ôoffers a timely
opportunity for the world's leaders to look beyond their pressing daily
concerns and consider what kind of United Nations they can envision and
will support in the new centuryö.

The Web site will provide continuously updated information on the
Millennium Assembly and the Millennium Summit, as well as on preparations
leading up to the Summit, including United Nations regional hearings. The
Web site will also provide links to the many Web sites relating to
activities organized by civil society in connection with the Millennium
Assembly.  Among these is the
ôMillennium Forumö, to be held on 22 to 26 May 2000 at United Nations
Headquarters. The Web site, initially launched in English, can be accessed
at
http://www.un.org/millennium.

Design for the Web site was supported by the Together Foundation for Global
Unity, a not-for-profit New York-based foundation. The site will be
maintained by the United Nations Department of Public Information and the
Office for the Millennium Assembly.

The United Nations Web site, www.un.org, was launched in September 1996. It
now receives weekly over 4 million accesses from some 140 countries, and is
available in the six official languages of the Organization.



- -
 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, 29 Oct 1999 13:59:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Nuclear Age Peace Foundation <[e-mail]>
Subject: [none]

X-Sender: [e-mail]
X-Mailer:  Macintosh Eudora Pro Version 2.1.3-J
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:50:34 +0900
To: (210+ primary recipients worldwide and extensively forwarded)
From: [e-mail] (Hosokawk)
Subject: MagpieNews #991029 (coolant leak at ATR Fugen)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
           Magpie Country Nukes Headliner

       nuclear issues news brief from Japan
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ANOTHER ACCIDENT AT JAPANESE NUCLEAR PLANT:
COOLANT LEAK AT HEAVY-WATER MODERATED REACTOR FUGEN;
17 HOURS DELAY IN NOTIFICATION OF THE EVENT,
ANOTHER VIOLATION OF SAFETY AGREEMENT

29 October 1999


A minor accident at Japan Nuclear Fuel Cycle Development Institute (JNC,
former PNC)'s experimental nuclear reactor Fugen (165MW, ATR-HWR, heavy
water moderated, light water cooled) occurred at around 22:38 (Japanese
Standard Ti
me; GMT+900) on 27 October.

Some 6 litters of radioactive coolant water leaked out of one of the 224
fuel tubes that constitute the reactor core. The upper seal of the tube was
mal
functioning. The operators decided to shut down the reactor manually, which
was completed early this morning (29 Oct).

JNC claims no radioactive release off site.

ATR Fugen is located in Tsuruga City, Fukui Prefecture, mid-west Japan on
the coast of Japan Sea. It is not far from the FBR Monju site in the same
city.

It was only 17 years after the operators became aware of the leakage that
the local government was notified of the accident. It is a clear violation
of
the safety agreement between JNF and the Fukui Prefecture. Naturally, the
prefecture administration is very unhappy about it.


*news source: Mainichi Newspaper, 29 October 1999, based on the JNF press
release of 28 October.


Tokai accident updates will follow soon.


_________________________________________
 << MagpieNews >> = Magpie Country Nukes Headliner
           editor: Dr K. Hosokawa
      fax: [phone]
      email: <[e-mail]>
      snail mail: Faculty of Agriculture,
                        University of Saga, 840-8502 Japan
 website: http://itak.ag.saga-u.ac.jp/=magpie/33.html
 _________________________________________
 *** Sorry, the web page is now temporarily disconnected.



- -
 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, 29 Oct 1999 16:07:57 -0700
From: "Save Ward Valley" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) US Campaign, Re: Urgent Ward Valley alert! and Wall of Denial

Ellen,

Thank you for sending the info out on your list!!!  I will put something
together for you for the wall.  What is the deadline?

Molly

Save Ward Valley
107 F Street
Needles, CA  92363
ph. 760/326-6267
fax [phone]

http://www.shundahai.org/SWVAction.html
http://earthrunner.com/savewardvalley
http://www.ctaz.com/~swv1
http://banwaste.envirolink.org
http://www.alphacdc.com/ien/wardvly4.html
http://www.greenaction.org


- -
 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, 29 Oct 1999 20:07:57 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: (abolition-usa) Sorry to drop out

Having found myself (and I know I'm not alone) overwhelmed with email, and
now having been nominated by the Socialist Party to be their Presidential
candidate next year - but, of course, with campaigning starting already - I
have to cut back incoming mail.

Anyone interested in the campaign can check: http://votesocialist.org

It is likely that, marginal as the Socialist Party and the Greens are to
mainstream politics, both will raise issues on the arms race that won't be
raised anywhere else. So if you want to help, fine.

Because I'm on the UN NGO Committee on Disarmament I'm hoping Alice Slater
can send me the occasional necessary post - and also Tracy.

I will "return to regular status" after November 2000 (unless, of course, I'm
in the White House).

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: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 23:52:33 -0700
From: "David Crockett Williams" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) The How of Nuclear Abolition2000

QUICK Please send me a copy of the Proposal to Build a Grassroots Movement
to Pressure the U.S. Political System for Nuclear Weapons Abolition.  I have
a hunch that in it somewhere is a passage read to me by reasoning humorist,
or is it humoring reasonist, at Proposition One which called for a cross
country PeaceMarch for the Year2000 to further the abolition of nuclear
weapons.  This aspect of the proposal has been on schedule since one year
ago and manifesting as Global Peace Walk2000 from San Francisco (January 15,
2000, Dr. King's birthday) to Washington DC (to unite all survival issue
messages and activists to compel nuclear disarmament, to gather over a
million people at the Washington Monument between October 8-12) and on to
the United Nations in New York City for its 55th anniversary October
24,2000, where we expect to exceed the success of our World Peace March of
1982 which ended with over a million people gathered in Central Park in
support of the UN Second Special Session on Disarmament inspired by Mahatma
Gandhi's "guruji" the late most venerable Nichidatsu Fujii who with his
supporters beat the drums for peace offering their walk as a prayer and
great cry to the heavens for "Global Peace Now!".

Along the way the Global Peace Walk2000 will be initiating the "United
Nations Decade of Creating a Culture of Peace for the 21st Century".

Based on the support we have gathered for this walk so far we expect its
messages will reach a minimum of 50million people over the next 12 months
before the US national elections.   With your help it  can reach and deeply
influence at least ten times that many or as many as it will take for an
effective global nuclear abolition agreement in 2000.  Today I spoke with
the webmaster and one of the staff at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation in
Santa Barbara which will be taking an active role in supporting Global Peace
Walk2000 especially as it passes through Santa Barbara where we already
received two years ago the proclamation of support from the Santa Barbara
mayor as we have so many others.  The GPW2000 will be leaving the SF Bay
area in conjunction with first or second largest Martin Luther King event in
the nation with participation of both the San Francisco and Oakland Mayors
who have already given the Global Peace Walk their mayoral proclamations of
support. (Willie Brown and Jerry Brown)

Not only because of the increasingly volatile threat of nuclear
conflagration by mistake or design, but from myriad serious environmental
threats such as predicted destruction of all oceanic phytoplankton (over
half Earth's oxygen supply) by the year 2008 from increased solar
irradiation due to ozone layer depletion, from the greenhouse effect and
observable increasingly destructive climate and disease vectors,etc, we
truly face a global emergency on many fronts today.  There may not BE a next
generation unless we resolve these problems NOW.   The global abolition of
nuclear weapons is today a "conservative" issue that almost every single
person can agree is needed but yet the status quo persists.

Nuclear Abolition is the "big" issue under which all other survival issues
and their activists can be united and as a "united we stand" PEOPLE these
problems can and MUST be resolved in the Year 2000.   Some think it already
too late to save life on earth http://www.projectearth.com

Nuclear Abolition 2000 is not a pipe dream.  It is on schedule if we see the
Year2000 as the year when all nuclear weapons globally can be abolished
starting with the will of the people of the United States of America to
compel their elected representatives to pass a Great Law of Peace in the
present Congress and that any candidate for any national election next
November will NOT get elected if they do not NOW support this necessary
antidote of The Great Law of Peace.   This is the message being carried by
Global Peace Walk2000 which was spawned one year ago from this loosely knit
group of folks with the vision and dream to use the year 2000 as the focus
to abolish nuclear weapons.

By mobilizing all activists and ordinary people in this campaign it is not
only possible or realistic that the Holmes Norton bill HR-2545 Nuclear
Disarmament and Economic Conversion Act can be passed in this Congress, but
it looks like it is the only viable opportunity to fulfill the vision of
Abolition2000, and so therefore it MUST be made a part of this Great Law of
Peace2000.

One thing is clear, Thomas and the folks of the 18year ongoing antinuclear
peace vigil at the White House whose meditations and discussions with
hundreds of thousands of visitors to Lafayette Park there inspired their
Proposition One ballot initiative and then the introduction of this proposed
federal law for global nuclear disarmament, these people are not in the
"business" of working for peace.  Nobody pays them to "work for peace"
whether they succeed or not.  They want to succeed with all of their heart
and soul and breath; it is what they LIVE for, not their job or their hobby.
They deserve our help so that they can stop living on the sidewalk looking
at the White House and they can GO HOME.   The are just too dedicated and
stubborn to give up until nuclear weapons are abolished.   Can't we respect
this devotion and offer our wholehearted support to this meritworthy
Proposition One?   http://www.prop1.org

Too many foundations and the grassroots can't grow.

Now some "activists" have a job working for peace in some foundation and
many foundations think that they cannot support political initiatives
because it violates their tax exempt status.    But this only applies to
specific candidates for political office.  It does not apply to ballot
initiatives or, as far as I can tell, either to supporting the Nuclear
Disarmament and Economic Conversion Act posted at above site.

We cannot delay.  The American Genocide continues and the Navajo people are
facing a February 1st deadline of forced relocation from Big Mountain AZ so
that more coal and uranium mining can take place to make more pollution and
nuclear bombs.

Global Peace Now!    Prop1 Now!    Nuclear Abolition2000!

Please visit the newly updated and rapidly expanding Global Peace Walk2000
website http://www.globalpeacenow.org and see how you can help and add your
message, links, etc.

David Crockett Williams   661-822-3309
[e-mail]
Global Emergency Alert Response
http://www.angelfire.com/on/GEAR2000
20411 Steeple Court, Tehachapi CA 93561


- -----Original Message-----
From: Peace through Reason <[e-mail]>
To: Nuclear Age Peace Foundation <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, October 29, 1999 10:03 PM
Subject: Thanks for Preservering


>At 02:31 PM 10/29/99 -0700, Carah Ong  wrote:
>
>>While I appreciate your realistic sense of where the Abolition 2000
>>movement is and where it is going, I have a great sense of hope in this
>>movement and firmly believe that it must continue.
>
>Apparently I did not make myself clear.  I certainly did not mean to
>suggest this movement should not continue.  However, if we are serious
>about abolishing nuclear weapons -- it's probably not very realistic to
>talk about "by the year 2000" anymore -- within the next decade or so, then
>I do suggest that it is necessary for us to be brutally honest about where
>the movement has come from, where it is going, what it is actually
>accomplishing, what it is actually failing to accomplish, and why.
>
>>We may not be accomplishing much in our eyes at this very moment,
>
>My reason for being in this movement is, I think, a pragmatic one: ie, to
>eliminate nuclear weapons.  Therefore, if it seems the movement is failing
>to accomplish that end, is it impolite for me to ask, "Why?"  If there were
>no nukes, there would be no need for an anti-nuke movement.  If there are
>still nukes, wouldn't it be somewhat accurate to say, "The nuclear
>abolition movement has been unsuccessful?"   Further, if the movement
>hasn't been successful, whose fault would it be?  If I don't think we're
>accomplishing much, would it be wrong to ask, "How can we accomplish more?"
>
>On the other hand, is it possible that some of us may think we are
>accomplishing far more than we actually are?  If that were the case,
>mightn't we continue to run a losing course, thereby precluding the
>possibility of actually accomplishing our goal?
>
>>but we must continue our efforts, for they are the seeds of a more
>peaceful and just world.
>
>By all means.  But, if we discover that our efforts have been futile (not
>completely futile, just less productive than desired), must we continue in
>those less than successful efforts, or would it be wiser to seek
>alternative strategies and tactics?
>
>>  If
>>we do not relentlessly continue to put pressure on our government, if we
do
>>not continue to educate the public, if we do not continue to bring a
>>broader awareness to all, if we do not carry the torch and pass it onto
>>future generations, if we do not colesce others to join our efforts, then
I
>>ask who will?
>
>I don't know.  Except, I've never suggested anyone else should.
>
>All I'm wondering is: Exactly what efforts would be most optimal for us to
>coalesce behind in order to put pressure on the government, educate the
>public, and cultivate a more peaceful and just world?
>
>>Although it is important, I don't believe that the amount of
>>progress is as vital as our will and motivation to make that progress.
>
>I agree wholeheartedly that will and motivation are very important.  Still,
>can we agree that the amount of progress our movement achieves is also very
>important?
>
>>Our
>>goal will be achieved once the will of the people and the polity elites
has
>>been changed,
>
>Almost precisely the question I'm asking:  How do we channel the will of
>the people to alter the polity elite?
>
>>and who better to work towards that than those with a common
>>and unified vision of a more peaceful and just world, free from the threat
>>of nuclear weapons.
>
>A common and unified vision of a more peaceful and just world.  Yup, for
>sure, if we could discover that we' probably have it licked.  In assessing
>the accomplishments of the movement it was not my intention to be negative,
>rather my intention was to objectively assess where we've been, and imply
>the question:  Where to go from here?
>
>I'm not sure where you came in on this thread.  I wonder:  How familiar are
>you with the Proposal to Build a Grassroots Movement to Pressure the U.S.
>Political System for Nuclear Weapons Abolition, which started this
>conversation, or with Alyn's comments regarding that proposal?
>
>I think Alyn's critique was an extremely helpful first step in testing the
>value of the proposal, which may ultimately bring us to a common and
>unified vision of the proposal (ie, The proposal has value, or it hasn't).
>If you're familiar with the proposal I'd really appreciate knowing what you
>see as the problems with it.
>
>>While your argument holds several valid points, I
>>would like to remind you of the importance of work, even if in your
opinion
>>it is "dead in the water".
>
>It would be very gratifying if we could agree whether, or to what extent,
>our important work is "dead in the water."  Again, if I'm mistaken I'd
>greatly appreciate it if someone could correct me.   Thus, I'd much prefer
>to have someone highlight my invalid points than to praise my valid ones
>(except, of course, that by identifying the "valid" points you would give
>me a clearer concept of what we agree on, which would be a positive
>accomplishment).
>
>I've tried to explain some reasons why I feel we are "dead in the water."
>If we're really sailing smoothly along, and somebody could help me to
>understand that, then I'd be more than delighted to stop dragging the
>anchor, or whatever it is that I'm doing, and become a more cooperative
>crew member.
>
>If we're not sailing sharply over the waves then I've got to wonder:  Why
>aren't we trying to plot a better course?
>
>> It is my greatest hope that we can all continue
>>in our common endeavor whether or not the goal is achieved in any of our
>>lifetimes.
>
>I can assure you, I have no intention of giving up.  Perhaps the goal won't
>be achieved in our lifetimes, but, and maybe it's just the pessimist in me,
>I just don't think "we" have forever.  I don't really give a damn about
>dying, so I'm not afraid of nuclear weapons.  I just think they're evil;
>that's why I want to get rid of them.  As it happens, I'm a NDT
>(Non-Dogmatic Theist).  Still, it seems, if I were only to focus on my own
>will and motivation, and rely on Universal Creator to rectify the problems
>which humanity has spawned, I'd be better off forgetting about Abolition
>2000, and just go join Jerry Falwell's church.
>
>>One last note, please be sure to distinguish the US movement from the
>>International movement.
>
>Please, help me out.  What difficulty am I having in distinguishing between
>the US movement and the International movement?
>
>In closing, thank you for taking the time to think about and reply to My
>Sincere Apology.  But if you're really interested in helping me (us?  our
>movement?), I hope you might find the time to reply to the points raised in
>my Proposal to Build a Grassroots Movement to Pressure the U.S. Political
>System for Nuclear Weapons Abolition.  If you haven't got a copy of the
>proposal, I'll send you one immediately.
>
>In complete sincerity,
>
>Thomas
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>
>* 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: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 16:06:41 -0500
From: "Boyle, Francis" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) FW: Summary of Trial at Greenock

- -----Original Message-----
From: TP2000 [mailto:[e-mail]]=20
Sent: Friday, October 29, 1999 8:08 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Summary of Trial at Greenock


Dear TPers
Here is a summary of what happened at the Greenock Trial, please share =
it
with anyone who is looking for the story.
Jane

JUSTICE AT GREENOCK

On Thursday 21st October 1999 Sheriff Margaret Gimblet instructed the =
jury
at Greenock Sheriff Court to acquit Angie Zelter, Ellen Moxley and Ulla
Roder who had been charged with causing =A380,000 damage to "Maytime", =
a
Trident-related acoustic research barge in Loch Goil, during a =
Ploughshares
2000 disarmament action in June this year. The trial had lasted 18 =
days.

The three women appeared on four charges which were basically: -
1. That they maliciously and wilfully damaged the vessel Maytime.=20
2. That they attempted to steal two inflatable life rafts.
3. That they maliciously and wilfully damaged equipment on board =
Maytime.
4. That they maliciously and wilfully damaged equipment by depositing =
it
'in the waters of Loch Goil, whereby said items became waterlogged, =
useless
and inoperable'.
Or, alternatively, that they stole equipment by throwing it in the =
waters
of Loch Goil.

Procurator Fiscal David Webster put forward a very simple Crown case.
Basically he proved that the three women were on "Maytime" and that =
they
had done all the damage mentioned in the indictment.  The only witness
connected with "Maytime" was Iain McPhee, the Barge Master, who knew =
very
little about the research undertaken by his barge or its sister vessel
"Newt".

The Defence case involved five expert witnesses.  Francis Boyle, =
Professor
of International Law, University of Illinois, gave evidence that
international law applies everywhere, and that, due to its destructive
power, Trident could not be used in any manner that was lawful.  Judge =
Ulf
Panzer from Germany gave evidence of the legitimacy of nonviolent =
action to
uphold the law.  He described how he had campaigned to get American
Pershing missiles removed from his country culminating in a sit-down
blockade of the Mutlangen base, along with 20 other judges.  They had
learned from the Nazi era the high cost of remaining silent when their
government acted unlawfully.  Professor Paul Rogers from Bradford
University gave evidence on the composition and capabilities of the =
Trident
system, the imminent danger of nuclear war and accidents and of the
effectiveness of civil resistance to change official policies.  =
Professor
Jack Boag testified about the imminent danger from nuclear weapons.
Finally, Rebecca Johnston of ACRONYM, Geneva, explained the =
consequences of
the failure of successive UK governments to fulfil its obligations to
disarm under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and how the present
administration is continuing to block negotiations. She described how
"Maytime" is an essential part of the Trident weapon system, and how =
other
states perceive Britain's deployment of Trident as a threat.

Advocates John Mayer and John McLaughlin represented Ulla and Ellen, =
but
Angie Zelter defended herself.  They all submitted that international =
law
applies in Scotland, that the threat or use of nuclear weapons was =
found to
be generally contrary to international law by the International Court =
of
Justice and the deployment of Trident is seen as a threat.  In =
addition,
John Mayer put forward a defence of necessity and John McLaughlin =
argued
that although the women had been wilful they had not been malicious.  =
At
the end of their arguments both advocates put a submission to the =
sheriff
that she should remove the verdict from the jury and acquit the women.

In addressing the jury Sheriff Gimblett said "I have to conclude that =
the
three in company with others were justified in thinking that Great =
Britain
in their use of Trident ......could be construed as a threat and as =
such is
an
infringement of international and customary law.  ...I have heard =
nothing
which would make it seem to me that the accused acted with criminal =
intent."

Trident Ploughshares 2000, 42-46 Bethel Street,
Norwich, Norfolk, NR2 1NR, UK

tel + 44 (0) 1603 611953
fax + 44 (0) 1603 633174
http://www.gn.apc.org/tp2000/

Email :    [e-mail]
     =20
Nuclear weapons are immoral, dangerous, polluting, a terrible waste of
resources and were found to be generally illegal by the International =
Court
of Justice on 8th July 1996.

- -
 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, 30 Oct 1999 16:06:56 -0500
From: "Boyle, Francis" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) FW: Sheriff Gimbletts Ruling

- -----Original Message-----
From: TP2000 [mailto:[e-mail]]=20
Sent: Friday, October 29, 1999 8:09 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Sheriff Gimbletts Ruling


Dear TPers,
Here is what Sheriff Gimblett said in full!

Sheriff Gimblett's Ruling
On Thursday 21st October Sheriff Margaret Gimblett instructed the jury =
at
Greenock Sheriff court to acquit Angie Zelter, Ellen Moxley and Ulla =
Roder,
who had been charged with causing =A380,000 damage to a Trident related
acoustic research barge in Loch Goil, during a Trident Ploughshares =
action.
The jury then agreed to acquit the accused. The full reasons for her
decision were given in court the day before. The following is a =
reasonable
transcript of what she said then:=20
Greenock Sheriff Court 2.08 pm Wednesday 20th October 1999 - Sheriff
Margaret Gimblett -=20
The defence is based on two matters:=20
Firstly the three accused consider Trident was being used illegally =
based
on an understanding on what international law said and on advice given =
to
them; if they were right that the use and threat of nuclear weapons was
illegal, not just possession, then they had a right given the enormity =
of
the risks of nuclear weapons to try and do something to stop that
illegality.=20
Secondly they had an absolute necessity, in which case it didn't matter
whether Trident is illegal or not, the necessity was there.=20
In considering this I have really not a great deal to go on other than =
what
the ICJ said in 1996 and their opinion, which although advisory,
acknowledges in words what is authoritative and agreed by all. On the =
face
of it very careful consideration should be given to its terms.=20
In reaching their opinion the ICJ based the opinion on all the body of =
law
that went before it which was carefully outlined. That law was =
canvassed in
court. The opinion did not say possession of nuclear weapons was =
illegal,
nowhere does any law say that.=20
Even our own High Court of Judiciary has said that possession of =
nuclear
weapons is not itself illegal. Unfortunately because they were not
addressed on the law only honest belief they did not go on to consider =
the
law except as far as it related to possession. The Helen John case can =
be
distinguished. Here there is a defence of international law and =
necessity,
but the whole defence hinges on the use made of nuclear weapons now and =
the
perceived threat or threats made by the nuclear state. On the use or =
threat
of use, I would concede that the ICJ did not say that in all =
circumstances
threat or use of nuclear weapons was universally prohibited. Equally =
there
is no conventional law that authorises the threat or use of nuclear =
weapons.

They issued what may be considered an enigmatic decision which has been
read on a number of occasions "the threat or use of nuclear weapons =
would
be generally contrary to the rules and principles of international law
applicable in armed conflict and in particular the principles and rules =
of
humanitarian law. However, in view of the current state of =
international
law and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot =
conclude
definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be =
lawful
or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the =
very
survival of the State would be at stake."=20
The last words are important. We do not know what they meant by =
generally,
but their final conclusion implies that the use or threat could only =
apply
in very tight circumstances of self-defence; the very survival of the
state. The President of the ICJ said "I cannot overemphasise that the
inability of the court to go further than the formal pronouncement at =
which
it has arrived cannot in any way be interpreted as a half-open door to
recognition of the legality of the threat or use of nuclear armaments." =

Also the way in which the judges voted showed that a majority voted =
against
the use of nuclear weapons. Lord Murray quote on this very helpful =
given
the status of Lord Murray:=20
"Turning to the central matter the judges were divided until the
President's casting vote. The court decided that the threat or use of
nuclear weapons is unlawful under all circumstances except last resort
self-defence to avoid annihilation. Three of the judges dissenting took =
the
opposite view to the other four dissenters. Four said that nuclear =
threat
or use in not unlawful. The other three considered that nuclear threat =
or
use is always unlawful. It follows that an absolute majority of 10 out =
of
14 judged that the threat or use of nuclear weapons is either entirely
illegal or generally illegal subject to one possible exception. A two
thirds majority rejected the general lawfulness of nuclear weapons."=20
I have the invidious task of deciding on international law as it =
relates to
nuclear weapons. I am only a very junior sheriff without the wisdom or
experience of those above me. I have a knowledge of the repercussions =
which
could be far reaching. As a sheriff I took an oath to act without fear =
or
favour in interpreting the law.=20
A point of international law has been raised here and I have to answer =
it.
I take comfort from the fact that there are other higher courts which =
can
rectify any mistake.=20
In the absence of anything other than the ICJ and having regard to the
article by Lord Murray, in particular the part relating to treaties and
conventions... Lord Murray's article concludes, "There then are the
principles on which the lawfulness of the proposed use of a particular
weapons are to be assessed. It is to be noted that in so far as they
consist of international customary law they are part of the domestic =
laws
of this country."=20
I listened carefully to Professor Boyle and have taken into account all =
the
evidence in this case from him and the other experts and in the absence =
of
any expert contradictory evidence from the crown, I have to conclude =
that
the three accused in company with many others were justified in =
thinking
that Great Britain in their use of Trident, not simply possession, the =
use
and deployment of Trident allied with that use and deployment at times =
of
great unrest, coupled with a first strike policy and in the absence of
indication from any government official then or now that such use fell =
into
any strict category suggested in the ICJ opinion .. the threat or use =
of
Trident could be construed as a threat, has indeed been construed by =
others
as a threat and as such is an infringement of international and =
customary
law.=20
The three took the view that if Trident is illegal, given the =
horrendous
nature of nuclear weapons, they had the obligation in terms of
international law to do whatever little they could to stop the =
deployment
and use of nuclear weapons in situations which could be construed as a
threat.=20
It follows, if I consider that Angie Zelter, Ulla Roder and Ellen =
Moxley
were justified in the first leg of their defence and having given that =
as
the principle reason the crown has a duty to rebut that defence. They =
have
not done so and so I uphold the three defence submissions in so far as =
they
refer to malicious and wilful damage.=20
I uphold the comments of Mr McLaughlin with regard to malice. Gordon =
says
"no act is punishable unless it is committed with a criminal mind..." I
have heard nothing which would make it seem to me that the accused =
acted
with criminal intent Therefore I will instruct the jury that they =
should
acquit all three accused on charges 1 to 3 which leaves only the
alternative in charge 4, they should also be acquitted on the first
alternative in charge 4.=20
I anyone else takes such action they do so at their peril. The law is =
not
clear on nuclear arms. I may be totally wrong. If it goes to appeal I =
may
not be upheld and every case depends on whatever circumstances. What I =
have
said is with regard to the very special circumstances of this trial and =
in
the light of international tension around June 8th.=20

Trident Ploughshares 2000, 42-46 Bethel Street,
Norwich, Norfolk, NR2 1NR, UK

tel + 44 (0) 1603 611953
fax + 44 (0) 1603 633174
http://www.gn.apc.org/tp2000/

Email :    [e-mail]
     =20
Nuclear weapons are immoral, dangerous, polluting, a terrible waste of
resources and were found to be generally illegal by the International =
Court
of Justice on 8th July 1996.

- -
 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, 30 Oct 1999 16:22:33 -0500
From: "Boyle, Francis" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) USA: Gimblett decision:Trident2 Condemned

Dear Friend:
    Thank you for these kind words in support of Sheriff Gimblett. I
have posted them out in Scotland for all to see and use in her behalf.
    By the way, you have a great anti-nuclear resister living out in
Oakland, my friend, former client, fellow Harvard Law School graduate,
former co-counsel, convicted Plowshares felon Katya Komisaruk, hero of the
award-winning movie:First-strike, Portrait of an Activist. Katya destroyed a
computer installation for the NAVSTAR/Trident2 system. We got her off of a
sabotage count by using international law, but she was  convicted of
destruction of federal property. Applied to Harvard Law School from prison.
Got admitted to the bar in California. Then helped get Tom and Donna
Howard-Hastings off on sabotage charges for their Plowshares Action against
the ELF/Trident2 facility in Wisconsin. We have had a string of successes
against Trident2 because it is so obviously an offensive, first strike
strategic nuclear weapons system.

    Yours very truly,
    Francis A. Boyle
    Professor of International Law

- -----Original Message-----
From: Barbara Dane [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, October 29, 1999 7:49 PM
To: Tony Blair
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
Julianne Spillman
Subject: Gimblett decision


Hon. Tony Blair
Prime Minister
United Kingdom

Hon. Mr. Blair,
A recent historic decision by Sheriff Margaret Gimblett declared that since
the nuclear installation at Loch Long in Scotland (or indeed anywhere) was,
according to recognized International Law, illegal, then it followed that
the women of the Commitee for Nuclear Disarmament being charged before her
were innocent of criminal activity and in fact were justified in their
actions to stop the illegal activity of the installation.

I am fully in support of the women of the CND, and believe that this
courageous decision by M. Gimblett should be applauded by all citizens of
the world who value the future of our planet and our children. Therefore I
ask that you become her protector if the need should arise in the event
anyone in officialdom attempt to harrass her or disrespect her decision.

Thank you very kindly for your attention.
Barbara Dane
4191 Fruitvale Ave.
Oakland, CA. 94602 USA
email: [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.

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

End of abolition-usa-digest V1 #209
***********************************

-
 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.