ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/abolition-usa/archive/v01.n247

Internet Message Format | 2000-01-06 | 48KB

From: [e-mail] (abolition-usa-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: abolition-usa-digest V1 #247
Reply-To: abolition-usa-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


abolition-usa-digest      Friday, January 7 2000      Volume 01 : Number 247




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

Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 22:35:51 -0500
From: peter weiss <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) NPT: letter to head of state

Good letter, Alice, but I think it would help to quote par. E of the ICJ
opinion in full.
                          Peter

ASlater wrote:
>=20
> Dear Friends,
> Here's my letter to my head of state urging him to personally represent=
 the
> US at the NPT.  Hope we can get these out all over the world.  Peace,
> Alice Slater
>=20
>                                              December 30, 1999
>=20
> President Bill Clinton
> BY FAX: [phone]
>=20
> Dear President Clinton,
>=20
> On April 24, 1999, the Non-Proliferation Treaty 2000 Review Conference =
will
> begin its four week meeting in New York at the United Nations.  I urge =
you
> to attend and represent our country at this critical crossroads in the =
new
> millenium for the safety and well being of humanity.  This may be our l=
ast
> opportunity to end the toxic legacy of the nuclear age before the whole
> treaty unravels.
>=20
> The United States, together with Russia, France, UK and China, promised=
 in
> 1968 when the NPT was negotiated, that it would make good faith efforts=
 for
> nuclear disarmament.  Yet today, more than 30 years after the treaty
> entered into force, there are still over 30,000 nuclear weapons on the
> planet, with more than 10,000 in our own country.  Two new countries, I=
ndia
> and Pakistan, have announced their nuclear weapons status.
>=20
> Instead of fulfilling our legal obligations we are contributing to the
> following disturbing developments: the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty wa=
s
> defeated in the Senate, and our weapons labs continue to design and tes=
t
> new nuclear weapons in computer-simulated virtual reality with the help=
 of
> underground =93sub-critical=94 tests at the Nevada test site.  You are =
now
> considering a decision to employ a missile defense system which would
> violate the ABM Treaty.  Russia and China have threatened to become mor=
e
> reliant on their nuclear arsenals because of our willingness to abrogat=
e a
> treaty which was able to stop the build up of nuclear arms for two deca=
des.
> The US Space Command brazenly trumpets its intention for =93dominating =
the
> space dimension of military operations to protect US interests and
> investment.=94
>=20
> The Article VI provision in the NPT that non-nuclear weapons states wou=
ld
> forego the acquisition of nuclear weapons in return for our promise to
> eliminate our nuclear arsenals is being questioned by many nations arou=
nd
> the world given the lack of progress for its fulfillment.  Despite a re=
cent
> World Court ruling that there is an international obligation to conclud=
e
> negotiations on a nuclear weapons convention, our country has blocked
> efforts in various international fora to even discuss nuclear disarmame=
nt.
>=20
>=20
> I urge you to lend your personal attention and whatever talents you can
> bring to bear on the issue at the NPT in April to work with other
> governments to begin negotiations on a treaty to eliminate nuclear weap=
ons.
>   The US public, when polled by Celinda Lake, answered that 87% of us w=
ant
> a treaty to ban the bomb just as we have done for chemical and biologic=
al
> weapons.  And 84% said they would feel safer if no country had nuclear
> weapons including our own.
>=20
> The fate of the earth is in your hands.  Please do not miss this millen=
ium
> opportunity to go down in history as one who dared to do the right thin=
g
> and make the world safe for our children, grandchildren, and future
> generations.
>=20
> Sincerely,
>=20
> Alice Slater
>=20
>=20
>=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]
> http://www.gracelinks.org
>=20
> GRACE is a member of Abolition 2000, a global network working for a tre=
aty
> to
> eliminate nuclear weapons.
>=20
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------=
- -
> To subscribe to the Abolition Global Caucus, send an email from the
> account you wish to be subscribed to:
> "[e-mail]"
>=20
> Do not include a subject line or any text in the body of the message.
>=20
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------=
- -
> At Esurance.com you can buy customized insurance online. Call
> 1-800-926-6012 and complete a quote today to start saving money tomorro=
w
> or just go to
> http://click.egroups.com/1/611/1/_/91925/_/946580956
>=20
> -- Easily schedule meetings and events using the group calendar!
> -- http://www.egroups.com/cal?listname=3Dabolition-caucus&m=3D1
>=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]
> http://www.gracelinks.org
>=20
> GRACE is a member of Abolition 2000, a global network working for a tre=
aty to
> eliminate nuclear weapons.
>=20
> -
>  To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.=
com"
>  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: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 22:39:20 -0500
From: peter weiss <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) ACTION ALERT - NPT Review

Hi Alice,

It would also help, I think, to suggest to Clinton that ridding the
world of nukes could be the most important part of his "legacy". See
today's article on that subject in the NYT.
                        Peter

ASlater wrote:
>
> Dear Friends,
> In Rebecca Johnson's latest posting of Disarmament Diplomacy, N41, she
> makes an
> excellent recommendation which our Abolition 2000 Network can support.  She
> suggests that the States Parties should be represented by their Heads of
> States
> of Foreign Ministers at during the opening days of the conference which
> begins
> on April 24th to indicate the need for "high level political will" for
> nuclear
> disarmament.  We can begin now to write letters to our heads of states
> urging
> them to demonstrate their commitment to Article VI and its promise of
> nuclear
> disarmament by showing up at the NPT Review in New York and calling for
> immediate negotiations on a treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons.  If our
> Network is able to generate the letters, calls, visits, and special
> contacts to
> Heads of State calling on them not to pass up this once in a millenium
> chance
> to call for negotiations in New York to ban the bomb, we would be keeping
> the
> faith with our original vision of a treaty to be negotiated by the year
> 2000.
> It's still not too late!!   PLEASE POST TO OUR CAUCUS YOUR PROGRESS IN
> HAVING
> YOUR HEAD OF STATE ATTEND THE NPT.  LET'S INSPIRE EACH OTHER!!  Peace,
> 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]
> http://www.gracelinks.org
>
> GRACE is a member of Abolition 2000, a global network working for a treaty
> to
> eliminate nuclear weapons.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe to the Abolition Global Caucus, send an email from the
> account you wish to be subscribed to:
> "[e-mail]"
>
> Do not include a subject line or any text in the body of the message.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> GET $100 IN COUPONS FOR TRYING GATOR!
>
> Grab the Gator! Free software does all the typing for you!
>
> Gator fills in forms and remembers passwords with NO TYPING at
>
> over 100,000 web sites!
> http://click.egroups.com/1/341/1/_/91925/_/946577218
>
> eGroups.com Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/abolition-caucus/
> http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
>
> 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]
> http://www.gracelinks.org
>
> GRACE is a member of Abolition 2000, a global network working for a treaty to
> eliminate nuclear weapons.
>
> -
>  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: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 23:36:35 -0500
From: peter weiss <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) Re: Inviting NPT speakers

Alice: I would add Kurt Vonnegut, who has written some of the best stuff
on nukes, and Glen Close, who used to be active in PAND (Performers and
Artists for Nuclear Disarmament). I have some acquaintance with both of
them.
                Peter

ASlater wrote:
>
> Dear Friends,
> Here's the list of proposed invitees, collected by email, meetings, etc.
> John Burroughs pointed out that elected officials and royalty should not be
> eligible to represent civil society and if you agree, that would help us to
> whittle the list down.  There are seven people in that category: Clark,
> Roche, Woolsey, Markey, Noor, Talal, Charles.  Hope we can develop a
> process for decision making--but in any event you now have all the info
> that I have.  Peace, Alice Slater
>
> Oscar Arias
> Archbishop Tutu
> Jose Ramos Horta
> Mikhail Gorbachev
> Thich Nhat Hanh
> Nelson Mandela
> Graciela Machel
> Mairead Corrigan Maguire
> Grace Thorpe
> Oren Lyons
> Joseph Rotblat
> Ted Taylor
> Jimmy Carter
> Arundhati Roy
> Helen Caldicott
> Prince Charles
> Paul Newman
> Michael Douglas
> Joanne Woodward
> Martin Sheen
> Warren Beatty
> Susan Sarandon
> Meryl Streep
> Lee Butler
> Admiral Ramdas
> Robert McNamara
> Queen Noor
> Judge Weermanty
> Jonathan Schell
> Lech Walesca
> Jodi Williams
> Marianne Willianson
> Alan Cranston
> Oprah Winfrey
> Barbara Streisand
> Walter Cronkite
> Ted Turner
> Pierce Brosnahan
> Maya Angelou
> Lynne Woolsey
> Ed Markey
> Stanisfield Turner
> The Baldwin Family
> Mayor of Hiroshima
> Mayor of Nagasaki
> Amartya Sen
> Douglas Roche
> Helen Clark
> Rob Green
> Jacqui Katona
> Winona la Duke
> Seamus Heaney
> Wole Solinka
> Miyoko Matsubara
>
> 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]
> http://www.gracelinks.org
>
> GRACE is a member of Abolition 2000, a global network working for a treaty to
> eliminate nuclear weapons.
>
> -
>  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: Wed, 05 Jan 2000 11:11:19 -0500
From: ASlater <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) ACTION ALERT - NPT Review

Thanks for your feedback Peter.  The point of my letter was to encourage
millions of letters to Heads of State urging them to attend the NPT.  I posted
my letter to Clinton as an example, and what I hoped would be an inspiration
for others.  I hope you will write one also and ask others to do so as
well.  I
did note the "legacy" article in the Times and was appalled at what a paltry
agenda the Times had set for Clinton in the nuclear arena.  I quote: " Among
the unpredictable[problems], though, are his two biggest nuclear
challenges--defusing the India-Pakistan confrontation and taming North
Korea--are both situations that could veer into crisis at any momement."  We
ought to write letters to the Times as well pointing out that the real nuclear
challenge for Clintonis how to take advantage of this millennium
opportunity to
get rid of nukes.  Regards, Alice

At 09:39 PM 01/04/2000 -0500, [e-mail] wrote:
>Hi Alice,
>
>It would also help, I think, to suggest to Clinton that ridding the
>world of nukes could be the most important part of his "legacy". See
>today's article on that subject in the NYT.
>                                                     Peter
>
>ASlater wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Friends,
>>> In Rebecca Johnson's latest posting of Disarmament Diplomacy, N41, she
>>> makes an
>>> excellent recommendation which our Abolition 2000 Network can support.
>>She
>>> suggests that the States Parties should be represented by their Heads of
>>> States
>>> of Foreign Ministers at during the opening days of the conference which
>>> begins
>>> on April 24th to indicate the need for "high level political will" for
>>> nuclear
>>> disarmament.  We can begin now to write letters to our heads of states
>>> urging
>>> them to demonstrate their commitment to Article VI and its promise of
>>> nuclear
>>> disarmament by showing up at the NPT Review in New York and calling for
>>> immediate negotiations on a treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons.  If our
>>> Network is able to generate the letters, calls, visits, and special
>>> contacts to
>>> Heads of State calling on them not to pass up this once in a millenium
>>> chance
>>> to call for negotiations in New York to ban the bomb, we would be
>>keeping
>>> the
>>> faith with our original vision of a treaty to be negotiated by the year
>>> 2000.
>>> It's still not too late!!   PLEASE POST TO OUR CAUCUS YOUR PROGRESS IN
>>> HAVING
>>> YOUR HEAD OF STATE ATTEND THE NPT.  LET'S INSPIRE EACH OTHER!!  Peace,
>>> 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]
>>> http://www.gracelinks.org
>>>
>>> GRACE is a member of Abolition 2000, a global network working for a
>>treaty
>>> to
>>> eliminate nuclear weapons.
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To subscribe to the Abolition Global Caucus, send an email from the
>>> account you wish to be subscribed to:
>>> "[e-mail]"
>>>
>>> Do not include a subject line or any text in the body of the message.
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> GET $100 IN COUPONS FOR TRYING GATOR!
>>>
>>> Grab the Gator! Free software does all the typing for you!
>>>
>>> Gator fills in forms and remembers passwords with NO TYPING at
>>>
>>> over 100,000 web sites!
>>> http://click.egroups.com/1/341/1/_/91925/_/946577218
>>>
>>> eGroups.com Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/abolition-caucus/
>>> http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
>>>
>>> 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]
>>> http://www.gracelinks.org
>>>
>>> GRACE is a member of Abolition 2000, a global network working for a
>>treaty to
>>> eliminate nuclear weapons.
>>>
>>> -
>>>  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.
>
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]
http://www.gracelinks.org

GRACE is a member of Abolition 2000, a global network working for a treaty to
eliminate nuclear weapons.

- -
 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, 6 Jan 2000 13:24:41 -0600
From: "Boyle, Francis" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Trident 2 Condemned in Scotland:Advocate Responds

Jumping The Gun

On the cover of Volume 44, Number 11 of November 1999 the Journal of the Law
Society of Scotland ran a banner headline against the backdrop of a Nuclear
Submarine at sea saying 'Verdict on the Trident Case' which gave the clear
impression that the final word of authority in the case of HM Advocate -v-
Zelter & Ors otherwise known as the 'Trident Three' had been handed down.
The 'verdict' was an article by Professor Rebecca M. M. Wallace of Napier
University entitled 'How the 'Trident' sheriff got it wrong'.

My purpose is to demonstrate how professor Wallace committed several
cardinal legal sins. It is submitted firstly that she failed to avail
herself of the facts before making any submission. That would be a fatal
failure of itself but when allied to her second error, of assuming what a
court said rather than waiting for the written judgement, and against that
illusory background going on to 'extrapolate' is akin to the kind of
overkill which Trident is designed to achieve.

Professor Wallace firstly fell into the basic trap which snared the other
academics who appeared on television and the press in those highly charged
few days after Sheriff Gimblett's judgement. None of them was in court for
the month of evidence, or my all-day submission, or the two-hour reading of
Sheriff Gimblett's judgement. The professor makes no mention of either the
charges or the facts of this criminal case anywhere in her article. That
will no doubt be because, not having been in court and at the time of
writing there being no written judgement, she does not know them. For
instance, she makes no mention of the important matters contained in no less
than six Joint Minutes agreed by the prosecution and defence and read out in
open court by the Clerk. Instead she predicates herself by stating that the
Sheriff 'allegedly founded her decision...' (Para 3). The professor then
boldly and entirely wrongly bases her comments in what she assumes to be the
foundation of the defence; namely a 'sincere belief' by the accused that
nuclear weapons are a bad thing (Col 1), that the accused's position was
periled upon the 'moral force' (Col 2) of what they did on 8th June 1999,
leading to the conclusion that all this case amounted to was the 'romantic
martyrdom of a few individuals'. It is just as well that this article was
merely the work of one lesser-known academic, for if it were a real
judgement, it would not only be dangerous but also attract deep shame upon
the good name of Scottish legal analysis.

At an early stage in the Crown Case, Sheriff Gimblett asked me, given the
recent ruling by the High Court in the 'Helen John' case, what the defence
was to be. I began my response by immediately distinguishing that case on
the basis that 'hopes, dreams and even sincere beliefs were no basis for a
defence in a court of criminal law'. Instead what was to be demonstrated by
the defence was an 'objective understanding' of the facts and law
surrounding the deployment of the British Trident Nuclear Submarine Fleet
and its attendant support systems. That would necessarily have to be
established by both the accused themselves and by experts of the very
highest calibre. That having been done, at the end of the defence case, a
submission would be made to the effect that (1) the deployment by HMG of
Trident is in clear violation of international law and thus Scots Law (2) in
the particular circumstances of this case, these accused could be regarded
as having taken all necessary legal steps to bring that violation to the
attention of the legal and political authorities only to be met with
intransigence (3) that in the face of the 'constant danger' posed by Trident
the accused, having done what they could, when they could, to prevent this
ongoing war-crime, had no alternative in the public interest but to exercise
their legal right to prevent that major crime from continuing (4) the
accused were therefor acting wilfully but not maliciously in disarming an
essential part of the support structure for Trident. Professor Wallace will
be inter-alia unaware that the first accused, Angie Zelter, after years of
tireless effort at international level, was, as part of the World Court
Project, amongst those responsible for motivating enough United Nations
Ambassadors to Move the UN to seek the Advisory Opinion of the International
Court of Justice (ICJ) in the first place. As every schoolboy now knows,
that effort was successful.

Secondly, the Professor goes on to approach her legal development in the
same way that her colleagues on television did it, namely backwards. It is
one thing for journalists to focus on the sound-bite term 'World Court' and
to get their 'analysis' entirely the wrong way round. It is quite another
for an (academic) lawyer to do it in print. The proverbial schoolboys knew
from the press two days after the judgement that the submission which
Sheriff Gimblett upheld was based primarily upon clear violation by the
British Government of the Nuremberg Principles and subsequent Charter. In
the present legal climate of 'New Human Rights' it is most noteworthy to
remember that there are certain Old Human Rights which were promulgated for
the highest of reasons and to get the two quite clear.

Article 6 (a) [of the Nuremberg Principles] defines 'Crime Against Peace' as
'planning, preparation, initiating or waging of a war of aggression, or a
war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or
participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any
of the foregoing'

Article 6 (b) defines the term 'War Crime' to include 'murder, ill-treatment
or deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose, of civilian
population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners
of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or
private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or
devastation not justified by military necessity.

Article 6 (c) defines the term 'Crime Against Humanity' to include 'murder,
extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts committed
against any civilian population.' (my emphases)

Following upon the atrocities by the Nazis during the Second World War these
provisions became the core of the founding legal document for the United
Nations, thus forming the basis of protection against annihilation for all
mankind in new World Order. At this point it is worth noting that The
Scotland Act 1998 provides that 'Control of nuclear, biological and chemical
weapons and other weapons of mass destruction' is a reserved matter.
(Reserved Matters - Schedule 5, Part 2, Head L - Miscellaneous, Section L3).
Mass destruction is inter-alia exactly what Article 6 outlaws.



I discussed the subsequent Geneva Conventions and Protocols flowing from the
Nuremberg Principles and which formed part of the material considered by the
ICJ. I thereby led chronologically up to and made certain references within
the ICJ Advisory Opinion but stressed that if the United Nations had never
requested that Opinion the argument which drove the Sheriff to the
inescapable conclusion that the accused were, in the particular
circumstances of this case, Not Guilty of the charges on the Indictment
remained. It is a matter of regret when an author makes legal comment on a
criminal case with no knowledge of the Indictment or the facts and then
relies upon what can be described as a consolidation of the law, namely the
ICJ Opinion, rather than referring to the substantive provisions. That is
not only intellectually reprehensible but is also to conveniently skip the
terms of the most powerful law in the world.



It is submitted that the professor goes further into the mire when she
states, having earlier accepted that all she had to go on was an 'alleged'
foundation for the Sheriff's Opinion, that it is 'important to extrapolate
the conclusions reached by the court in the context of the contemporary
international nuclear debate' (Col 3). It is submitted that such
'extrapolation' is again not only misconceived by being premature but is
also dangerous. The Courts will no doubt ignore her article but as an
academic, certain students, at least within her own department, are likely
to follow what she says, if only to impress in examinations. We await their
articles with apprehension and trust they will not follow careers in the
military.

John Mayer, Advocate




Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Avenue
Champaign, Ill. 61820
217-333-7954 (voice)
217-244-1478 (fax)
[e-mail] <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: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 16:53:06 -0800
From: Nuclear Age Peace Foundation <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Can you imagine...

Can you imagine working at the following Company?

It has a little over 500 employees with the following statistics:

*29 have been accused of spousal abuse
*7 have been arrested for fraud
*19 have been accused of writing bad checks
*117 have bankrupted at least two businesses
*3 have been arrested for assault
*71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
*14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
*8 have been arrested for shoplifting
*21 are current defendants in lawsuits
*In 1998 alone, 84 were stopped for drunk driving

Can you guess which organization this is? Give up?





 It's the 535 members of your United States Congress. The same group that
perpetually cranks out hundreds upon hundreds of new laws designed to keep
the rest of us in line.


Carah Lynn Ong
Coordinator, Abolition 2000
1187 Coast Village Road PMB 121, Suite 1
Santa Barbara CA 93108

Phone [phone]  FAX[phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Website http://www.abolition2000.org


Join the Abolition-USA or Abolition-Global Caucus list serve to regularly
receive updates about the Abolition movement.  Both caucus' also provide a
forum for conversation on nuclear-related issues as well as they are used
to post important articles and information pertaining to nuclear abolition.



To subscribe to the Abolition Global Caucus, please do one of the following:

1. Send a message to the list moderator at [e-mail]

2. Visit the Abolition-caucus website at:
Http://www.egroups.com/list/abolition-caucus/ and submit a membership form.

3. Visit the Abolition 2000 website and submit a membership form.

4. Send an e-mail to:  [e-mail]  (leave the
subject line and body of the message blank).


To post a message to the Abolition Global Caucus, send your message to:

[e-mail]


To subscribe to the Abolition-USA listerve, send a message (with no
subject) to:
[e-mail]
In the body of the message, write:
"subscribe abolition-usa" (do not include quotation marks)

To post a message to the Abolition-USA list, mail your message to:
 [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: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 20:59:01 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: (abolition-usa) Iraq sanctions

Below is a Human Rights Watch press release regarding Iraq and sanctions. I
send to this list because the use of sanctions, essentially against Iraqi
people, is an important issue in itself, and because how Iraq is treated is
an important precedent for nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. (I
confess to feeling some unease at the spectre, inter alia, of a nuclear-armed
Iraq being used to justify the present sanctions and bombing.) - John
Burroughs

Restructure Iraq Embargo, Try Leaders for War Crimes
(New York, January 5, 2000) In <http://www.hrw.org/press/2000/01/iraq- pr.htm
iraq-ltr.htm>A letter released today Human Rights Watch urged the United
Nations Security Council to tighten controls on Iraq's ability to import
eapons-related goods, but lift most restrictions on non-military trade and
investment in order to address the country's continuing humanitarian crisis.

"The most adamant proponents of comprehensive sanctions have always insisted
that their quarrel is not with the Iraqi people. The time has come to put
these words to the test."

Hanny Megally
Executive Director
Middle East and North Africa Division of Human Rights Watch

In the letter to U.S. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, the current Security
Council president, and the heads of other delegations, Human Rights Watch also
called for the establishment of an international criminal tribunal to try
Saddam Hussein and other top Iraqi leaders for war crimes and crimes against
humanity.

The letter charged that nearly ten years of a comprehensive embargo, coming on
top of the 1991 Gulf War destruction of much of Iraq's civilian economic
infrastructure, has created a public health emergency which the existing
oil-for-food program and the resolution passed in December do not adequately
address. A memorandum attached to the letter cites field reports by U.N.
agencies and the International Committee of the Red Cross.

"The most adamant proponents of comprehensive sanctions have always insisted
that their quarrel is not with the Iraqi people," said Hanny Megally,
executive director of the Middle East and North Africa division of Human
Rights Watch. "The time has come to put these words to the test."

Prohibitions against imports of a military nature should remain in place, the
group said, as well as end-use monitoring of commodities with military as well
as civilian applications.

The letter points out that no embargo, including the existing one, can ensure
that Iraq does not get access to prohibited materials. It said that Iraq
presently imports without significant restriction goods paid for with foreign
exchange earned mainly from smuggling and remittances. It recommended that the
U.N. offset the government's increased access to export and investment
revenues under these proposed reforms by making all imports liable to
inspection at ports of entry.

"The scale of the crisis and the extent of the impoverishment require more
than food and medicine and some spare parts," said Megally. "Even with the
high
level of funding of oil-for-food in 1999, life-threatening conditions still
prevail. We agree that the Iraqi government bears a large share of the blame.
But Iraq's callous manipulation of the sanctions is part of the reality that
the Security Council has to take into account. Instead of being content to put
all the blame on Baghdad, as the U.S. government continues to do, the Council
has to face up to its own share of the responsibility. Blocking the
government's access to foreign exchange is one thing, but choking the entire
economy to do so puts the burden mostly on ordinary Iraqis."

The letter also urged the Security Council to implement promptly the
recommendations of the "humanitarian panel" it appointed last January. Many of
these were part of the omnibus Iraq sanctions resolution adopted on December
17, but require further action by the Council or the sanctions committee.
"These recommendations should not be treated as bargaining chips to be
implemented only if the Iraqi government cooperates," said Megally. "They are
the least the Security Council must do to fulfill its own humanitarian
obligations."

Human Rights Watch has extensively documented war crimes and atrocities
committed by the Iraqi government, the letter said, and fully supports efforts
to constrain and hold accountable those responsible. The group pressed the
Security Council to establish an international criminal tribunal, like those
already set up for Rwanda and former Yugoslavia, to indict and prosecute Iraqi
officials for whom credible evidence exists of responsibility for such crimes.
The group noted that such a step was entirely warranted on the basis of the
evidence it has uncovered, and would help dispel any suggestion that
addressing Iraq's humanitarian crisis implied leniency toward the government.

Megally noted that half the non-permanent members of the Security Council have
just joined this week, and urged them to promote a fresh approach to the Iraq
crisis.

Human Rights Watch said the Security Council had acknowledged back in 1990 its
obligation to monitor the humanitarian impact of the sanctions, but failed to
follow through. The group said that an impartial humanitarian body or a
special rapporteur should examine the practices of both the Security Council
and the Iraqi government that affect the humanitarian situation in the
country.

Individual letters were also sent to the heads of mission of the other members
of the Security Council.

For more information contact:
Hanny Megally [phone] (New York)
Joe Stork [phone] (Washington)
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH <http://www.hrw.org/index.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, 7 Jan 2000 09:09:54 -0600
From: "Boyle, Francis" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Crying over Spilled Milk:Wallace et al:Trident2 Condemned in Scot land

One of the first big anti-nuclear victories we had in the United States was
People v. Jarka ( April, 1985). There we convinced the judge to instruct the
jury that:"The use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is a war crime or an
attempted war crime because such use would violate international law by
causing unnecessary suffering, failing to distinguish between combatants and
noncombatants and poisoning its targets by radiation." With an instruction
like that it is not surprising that the jury acquitted all the defendants of
mob action and resisting arrest for an anti-nuclear protest before the Great
Lakes Naval Training Center. One of the jurors said that he was so upset by
the Reagan administration's policies that  he was going to go out and
protest himself. These acquittals were  condemned by the entire Criminal Law
Faculty of the University of Chicago Law School. (UC is my NON-alma mater,
AB'71). I told the news media at the time that I did not  give a damn what
these Chicago Law Professors said and that we were going to do it again. We
promptly did it again  in Chicago v. Streeter (May 1985), probably the first
acquittals in the United States for a pure anti-apartheid protest
demonstration--we even made the New York Times on that one. Once again,
these acquittals were  condemned by the Criminal Law Faculty of the
University of Chicago Law School. And once again,I told the news media that
I did not give a damn what those Chicago Law Professors said and that we
were going to do it again. We have been winning these cases by using
international law for the past 15 years. See my Defending Civil Resistance
under International Law.
    The moral of the story? Don't pay the least bit of attention to what
these law professors have to say. Lawyers make the law! Professors can only
write about it. And most law professors I know do not have the courage of
their own convictions.
Francis A. Boyle
Professor of Law
Lawyer

- -----Original Message-----
From: TP2000 [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2000 5:01 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Article by John Mayer


The November edition of The Journal of the Law Society of Scotland carried
an article about the Greenock Trial by Professor Rebecca Wallace. It was
entitled 'How the Trident Sheriff got it wrong'. We will scan this article
and put it on the website as soon as possible.
Meanwhile here is John Mayers reply. You can work out from this what the
original article said.


Jumping The Gun

On the cover of Volume 44, Number 11 of November 1999 the Journal of the
Law Society of Scotland ran a banner headline against the backdrop of a
Nuclear Submarine at sea saying 'Verdict on the Trident Case' which gave
the clear impression that the final word of authority in the case of HM
Advocate -v- Zelter & Ors otherwise known as the 'Trident Three' had been
handed down. The 'verdict' was an article by Professor Rebecca M. M.
Wallace of Napier University entitled 'How the 'Trident' sheriff got it
wrong'.

My purpose is to demonstrate how professor Wallace committed several
cardinal legal sins. It is submitted firstly that she failed to avail
herself of the facts before making any submission. That would be a fatal
failure of itself but when allied to her second error, of assuming what a
court said rather than waiting for the written judgement, and against that
illusory background going on to 'extrapolate' is akin to the kind of
overkill which Trident is designed to achieve.

Professor Wallace firstly fell into the basic trap which snared the other
academics who appeared on television and the press in those highly charged
few days after Sheriff Gimblett's judgement. None of them was in court for
the month of evidence, or my all-day submission, or the two-hour reading of
Sheriff Gimblett's judgement. The professor makes no mention of either the
charges or the facts of this criminal case anywhere in her article. That
will no doubt be because, not having been in court and at the time of
writing there being no written judgement, she does not know them. For
instance, she makes no mention of the important matters contained in no
less than six Joint Minutes agreed by the prosecution and defence and read
out in open court by the Clerk. Instead she predicates herself by stating
that the Sheriff 'allegedly founded her decision...' (Para 3). The professor
then boldly and entirely wrongly bases her comments in what she assumes to
be the foundation of the defence; namely a 'sincere belief' by the accused
that nuclear weapons are a bad thing (Col 1), that the accused's position
was periled upon the 'moral force' (Col 2) of what they did on 8th June
1999, leading to the conclusion that all this case amounted to was the
'romantic martyrdom of a few individuals'. It is just as well that this
article was merely the work of one lesser-known academic, for if it were a
real judgement, it would not only be dangerous but also attract deep shame
upon the good name of Scottish legal analysis.

At an early stage in the Crown Case, Sheriff Gimblett asked me, given the
recent ruling by the High Court in the 'Helen John' case, what the defence
was to be. I began my response by immediately distinguishing that case on
the basis that 'hopes, dreams and even sincere beliefs were no basis for a
defence in a court of criminal law'. Instead what was to be demonstrated by
the defence was an 'objective understanding' of the facts and law
surrounding the deployment of the British Trident Nuclear Submarine Fleet
and its attendant support systems. That would necessarily have to be
established by both the accused themselves and by experts of the very
highest calibre. That having been done, at the end of the defence case, a
submission would be made to the effect that (1) the deployment by HMG of
Trident is in clear violation of international law and thus Scots Law (2)
in the particular circumstances of this case, these accused could be
regarded as having taken all necessary legal steps to bring that violation
to the attention of the legal and political authorities only to be met with
intransigence (3) that in the face of the 'constant danger' posed by
Trident the accused, having done what they could, when they could, to
prevent this ongoing war-crime, had no alternative in the public interest
but to exercise their legal right to prevent that major crime from
continuing (4) the accused were therefor acting wilfully but not
maliciously in disarming an essential part of the support structure for
Trident. Professor Wallace will be inter-alia unaware that the first
accused, Angie Zelter, after years of tireless effort at international
level, was, as part of the World Court Project, amongst those responsible
for motivating enough United Nations Ambassadors to Move the UN to seek the
Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the first
place. As every schoolboy now knows, that effort was successful.

Secondly, the Professor goes on to approach her legal development in the
same way that her colleagues on television did it, namely backwards. It is
one thing for journalists to focus on the sound-bite term 'World Court' and
to get their 'analysis' entirely the wrong way round. It is quite another
for an (academic) lawyer to do it in print. The proverbial schoolboys knew
from the press two days after the judgement that the submission which
Sheriff Gimblett upheld was based primarily upon clear violation by the
British Government of the Nuremberg Principles and subsequent Charter. In
the present legal climate of 'New Human Rights' it is most noteworthy to
remember that there are certain Old Human Rights which were promulgated for
the highest of reasons and to get the two quite clear.

Article 6 (a) [of the Nuremberg Principles] defines 'Crime Against Peace'
as 'planning, preparation, initiating or waging of a war of aggression, or
a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or
participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any
of the foregoing'
    Article 6 (b) defines the term 'War Crime' to include 'murder,
ill-treatment or deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose, of
civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of
prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of
public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or
villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
    Article 6 (c) defines the term 'Crime Against Humanity' to include
'murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts
committed against any civilian population.' (my emphases)

Following upon the atrocities by the Nazis during the Second World War
these provisions became the core of the founding legal document for the
United Nations, thus forming the basis of protection against annihilation
for all mankind in new World Order. At this point it is worth noting that
The Scotland Act 1998 provides that 'Control of nuclear, biological and
chemical weapons and other weapons of mass destruction' is a reserved
matter. (Reserved Matters - Schedule 5, Part 2, Head L - Miscellaneous,
Section L3). Mass destruction is inter-alia exactly what Article 6 outlaws.


I discussed the subsequent Geneva Conventions and Protocols flowing from
the Nuremberg Principles and which formed part of the material considered
by the ICJ. I thereby led chronologically up to and made certain references
within the ICJ Advisory Opinion but stressed that if the United Nations had
never requested that Opinion the argument which drove the Sheriff to the
inescapable conclusion that the accused were, in the particular
circumstances of this case, Not Guilty of the charges on the Indictment
remained. It is a matter of regret when an author makes legal comment on a
criminal case with no knowledge of the Indictment or the facts and then
relies upon what can be described as a consolidation of the law, namely the
ICJ Opinion, rather than referring to the substantive provisions. That is
not only intellectually reprehensible but is also to conveniently skip the
terms of the most powerful law in the world.


It is submitted that the professor goes further into the mire when she
states, having earlier accepted that all she had to go on was an 'alleged'
foundation for the Sheriff's Opinion, that it is 'important to extrapolate
the conclusions reached by the court in the context of the contemporary
international nuclear debate' (Col 3). It is submitted that such
'extrapolation' is again not only misconceived by being premature but is
also dangerous. The Courts will no doubt ignore her article but as an
academic, certain students, at least within her own department, are likely
to follow what she says, if only to impress in examinations. We await their
articles with apprehension and trust they will not follow careers in the
military.


John Mayer, Advocate

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]

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.

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

End of abolition-usa-digest V1 #247
***********************************

-
 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.