ftp.xmission.com

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ ftp.xmission.com / 2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar / ftp.xmission.com / pub / lists / abolition-usa / archive / v01.n466 < prev next >

Wrap

Internet Message Format | 2001-09-15 | 43KB

From: owner-abolition-usa-digest@lists.xmission.com (abolition-usa-digest) To: abolition-usa-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: abolition-usa-digest V1 #466 Reply-To: abolition-usa-digest Sender: owner-abolition-usa-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-abolition-usa-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk abolition-usa-digest Sunday, September 16 2001 Volume 01 : Number 466 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: From: Subject: [none] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 10:03:08 +0100 From: Sally Light <sallight1@earthlink.net> Subject: (abolition-usa) [Fwd: [abolition-caucus] A Letter to Bush from Hiroshima] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - --------------AFC34D56F52E8449E60EBCF4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit - --------------AFC34D56F52E8449E60EBCF4 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: <sentto-1413460-4450-1000568666-sallight1=earthlink.net@returns.onelist.com> Received: from n20.groups.yahoo.com ([216.115.96.70]) by emu (EarthLink SMTP Server) with SMTP id tq6tqt.qot.37tiu8v for <sallight1@earthlink.net>; Sat, 15 Sep 2001 08:44:28 -0700 (PDT) X-eGroups-Return: sentto-1413460-4450-1000568666-sallight1=earthlink.net@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.4.52] by n20.onelist.org with NNFMP; 15 Sep 2001 15:44:26 -0000 X-Sender: CXJ15621@nifty.ne.jp X-Apparently-To: abolition-caucus@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 15 Sep 2001 15:44:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 39181 invoked from network); 15 Sep 2001 12:54:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 15 Sep 2001 12:54:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp1.nifty.ne.jp) (202.219.63.53) by mta2 with SMTP; 15 Sep 2001 12:54:04 -0000 Received: from default (ykhm070n241.ppp.infoweb.ne.jp [61.124.73.241]) by smtp1.nifty.ne.jp (8.9.3+3.2W/3.7W-991025) with SMTP id VAA07198; Sat, 15 Sep 2001 21:54:02 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <029f01c13de5$54374d00$18497c3d@default> To: "Abolition Caucus" <abolition-caucus@yahoogroups.com> Cc: "MORITAKI Haruko" <haruko-m@f3.dion.ne.jp> X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 From: "Hiro Umebayashi" <CXJ15621@nifty.ne.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list abolition-caucus@yahoogroups.com; contact abolition-caucus-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list abolition-caucus@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:abolition-caucus-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 21:51:30 +0900 Subject: [abolition-caucus] A Letter to Bush from Hiroshima Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Dear Friends, Since I haven't seen on this list-serve the following letter to Bush from the Hiroshima Alliance for Nuclear Weapons Abolition, a newly established citizens' coalition across the local organizations, I'll forward it herewith. In peace and solidarity, Hiro Umebayashi ************************************************* Hiro Umebayashi President/Executive Director, Peace Depot International Coordinator, Pacific Campaign for Disarmament and Security (PCDS) 3-3-1 Minowa-cho, Kohoku-ku, Yokohama, 223-0051 Japan tel: 81-45-563-5101 (office), fax: 81:45-563-9907 (office) e-mail: CXJ15621@nifty.ne.jp (personal) ************************************************* September 13, 2001 The Honorable George W. Bush President of the United States Dear President Bush, We are writing on behalf of the Hiroshima Alliance for Nuclear Weapons Abolition to express our condolences for those who died in the tragic terrorist attack on the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon on September 11. We share your grief and sorrow that so many innocent lives were lost to this violent outburst of hatred. We are concerned, however, about the repeated comparisons of this incident to Pearl Harbor. That attack led very quickly to the hysterical incarceration of Japanese Americans. Ultimately, it led to atomic bombings that devastated not two buildings but two entire cities. We beg you to ensure that no similar hysteria sweeps your nation again. We are further concerned about the emphasis in your subsequent speech to the nation on America$B!G(Bs power and determination to exact revenge. Thus, we are writing to urge you to refrain from reacting in anger and violence. As the most powerful nation on Earth, the United States must not stoop to the level of these terrorists. They are desperate, filled with rage. As you said, the US is strong, strong enough to rise above even this. This tragic man-made disaster must not be the start of a wildly escalating vicious cycle of violence that will bring the whole world down to the level of Israel$B!G(Bs West Bank. We hope this incident will convince you that any effort to protect the US with a missile defence program or space-based weapons will be futile. We must all realize that our enemy is not any group of terrorists. Rather, it is the hatred and rage that move terrorists and burn in all our hearts today. The US should immediately re-evaluate its reliance on power and make serious efforts to explore and alleviate misery and hatred throughout the world. Rather than remaining an object of envy and hate, the US must earn the love and respect of an increasingly desperate and interdependent world. Friendship and cooperation are the only means of achieving true and lasting security. Please be aware that the peace-loving people of Hiroshima stand ready to help you and the United States in any way we can to fight hatred and violence. Sincerely, Mitsuo Okamoto Goro Kawai Haruko Moritaki On behalf of the Hiroshima Alliance for Nuclear Weapons Abolition - ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> FREE COLLEGE MONEY CLICK HERE to search 600,000 scholarships! http://us.click.yahoo.com/47cccB/4m7CAA/ySSFAA/7XSolB/TM - ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe to the Abolition Global Caucus, send an email from the account you wish to be subscribed to: "abolition-caucus-subscribe@egroups.com" Do not include a subject line or any text in the body of the message. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ - --------------AFC34D56F52E8449E60EBCF4-- - - 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. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 16:52:24 -0700 From: carol wolman <cwolman@mcn.org> Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) Re: [abolition-caucus] Towards a New Progressive Security Agenda - --------------861FE4DAA31A3CED6574663A Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well said, Jonathan. Thank you. Peace, Carol JGG786@aol.com wrote: > The hearts of all of good will suffer when injustice is committed. Its > scale can never be measured and the cry of the innocent never fully > understood. Let us take courage and stand stronger to address the > causes the manifest in the horrors we are seeing. > > The blasts of the tragic airplane hijack attacks of September 11, 2001 > awakens us to serious reflection. Yet, our hearts cry like the sirens > wailing in ambulances carrying suffering casualties to hospitals. > First, our hearts deeply mourn the dead and feel for the losses felt > by their immediate friends and families. They alone know the depths of > grief. Second, we grieve for the loss of humanity in the hearts of the > perpetrators for whom only desperate acts of irrationality appeared > viable. Third, we emphasize how important a shock this is to the peace > and security of our nation. Rational sober responses leading to > greater justice and moral coherence will alone cure that shock. > > May God protect the souls of the departed and lead us, the living, to > bring about a world of greater hope and justice for the > disenfranchised while ensuring safety for the privileged. The duty to > ensure that desperation does not lead to even greater irrational > destruction through the use of a nuclear device has been heightened by > this tragedy. It is imperative that there be an international > cooperative security regime that will not allow fissile materials to > be in the hands of those who devalue life. It is imperative that > nuclear states set a credible example by working to rid the world of > threats to the innocent and immediately take nuclear weapons off alert > status and create an international inventory of fissile materials. > Greater efforts in working for real peace, nuclear disarmament and > human security are needed now more than ever. > > Now is the time to help. We must organize to: > 1. Address the gross disparities of wealth on the planet and never > demonize any peoples, for the dehumanization of others is the > precondition for heartless killing. > 2. Promote sustainable development so that people have hope and the > environment can continue to sustain human life > 3. Promote cooperative security by: > a. working systematically to end reliance on the threat to use nuclear > weapons; > b. quickly creating an international inventory of fissile weapons > grade materials so that a terrorist cannot use a device that will > destroy millions of innocent lives and ensure the end of civil > liberties by creating a credible threat to national security; > c. make sure our civil liberties remain intact; > d. ratify the International Criminal Court and bring those who have > committed a crime against humanity to international justice. > > Deeply Appreciative of All Who Work for All, > Jonathan Granoff > President of the Global Security Institute - --------------861FE4DAA31A3CED6574663A Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html> Well said, Jonathan. Thank you. Peace, Carol JGG786@aol.com wrote: <blockquote TYPE=CITE>The hearts of all of good will suffer when injustice is committed. Its scale can never be measured and the cry of the innocent never fully understood. Let us take courage and stand stronger to address the causes the manifest in the horrors we are seeing. The blasts of the tragic airplane hijack attacks of September 11, 2001 awakens us to serious reflection. Yet, our hearts cry like the sirens wailing in ambulances carrying suffering casualties to hospitals. First, our hearts deeply mourn the dead and feel for the losses felt by their immediate friends and families. They alone know the depths of grief. Second, we grieve for the loss of humanity in the hearts of the perpetrators for whom only desperate acts of irrationality appeared viable. Third, we emphasize how important a shock this is to the peace and security of our nation. Rational sober responses leading to greater justice and moral coherence will alone cure that shock. May God protect the souls of the departed and lead us, the living, to bring about a world of greater hope and justice for the disenfranchised while ensuring safety for the privileged. The duty to ensure that desperation does not lead to even greater irrational destruction through the use of a nuclear device has been heightened by this tragedy. It is imperative that there be an international cooperative security regime that will not allow fissile materials to be in the hands of those who devalue life. It is imperative that nuclear states set a credible example by working to rid the world of threats to the innocent and immediately take nuclear weapons off alert status and create an international inventory of fissile materials. Greater efforts in working for real peace, nuclear disarmament and human security are needed now more than ever. Now is the time to help. We must organize to: 1. Address the gross disparities of wealth on the planet and never demonize any peoples, for the dehumanization of others is the precondition for heartless killing. 2. Promote sustainable development so that people have hope and the environment can continue to sustain human life 3. Promote cooperative security by: a. working systematically to end reliance on the threat to use nuclear weapons; b. quickly creating an international inventory of fissile weapons grade materials so that a terrorist cannot use a device that will destroy millions of innocent lives and ensure the end of civil liberties by creating a credible threat to national security; c. make sure our civil liberties remain intact; d. ratify the International Criminal Court and bring those who have committed a crime against humanity to international justice. Deeply Appreciative of All Who Work for All, Jonathan Granoff President of the Global Security Institute</blockquote> </html> - --------------861FE4DAA31A3CED6574663A-- - - 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. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 12:52:09 +0100 From: Sally Light <sallight1@earthlink.net> Subject: (abolition-usa) Re: [abolition-caucus] IPS story on treaties on terrorism John - Thanks for posting this excellent article. Very helpful. Best - Sally. John Burroughs wrote: > http://www.ipsdailyjournal.org/daily/091201.htm > > US SHIES AWAY FROM UN TREATIES ON TERRORISM > > by Thalif Deen > > UNITED NATIONS, Sep 11 (IPS) - Less than 24 hours before the United States > came > under a wave of terrorist attacks, the United Nations was rejoicing over the > fact that 83 of its 189 member states had ratified some 12 existing U.N. > conventions against international terrorism. But what was "particularly > gratifying", said Secretary-General Kofi Annan in his annual report to the > General Assembly, was that 16 of those countries had ratified the landmark > International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings which > entered into force in May this year. The U.S., which was not on the list of 83 > ratifiers, is one of the few countries that refuses to ratify international > conventions, including those against terrorism. "Sign yes, ratify no," says a > U.N. official, speaking on condition of anonymity. If a country refuses to > ratify a treaty, that treaty has no legal validity in that country, he added. > > During the last four years, the United Nations has established two new > conventions: the 1999 International Convention For the Suppression of > Terrorist > Financing and the 1997 U.N. Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist > Bombings. Successive U.S. administrations have been thwarted by right-wing > politicians in Congress who argue that the Washington should not be party to > international conventions because they either override domestic law or are > perceived as being not in the national interest. As a result, the United > States > has refused to ratify not only conventions against terrorism but also several > other treaties, including a convention against landmines and those relating to > climate change, law of the sea, and the creation of an international criminal > court. > > Nevertheless, Annan Tuesday expressed shock and grief following the day's > terror attacks against New York's World Trade Centre and the U.S. defence > department's Pentagon headquarters. Annan expressed his ''profound condolences > to (the attacks' victims and their families) and to the people and government > of the United States.'' ''There can be no doubt that these attacks are > deliberate acts of terrorism, carefully planned and coordinated - and as > such I > condemn them utterly. Terrorism must be fought resolutely wherever it > appears,'' Annan said. > > In his report to the General Assembly Monday, Annan said he was looking > forward > to two new conventions currently under discussion: an International Convention > for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism and an omnibus Comprehensive > Convention on International Terrorism. Both conventions are scheduled for > discussion by the Adhoc Committee on Terrorism during the current session of > the General Assembly, which runs through mid-December. Meanwhile, the United > States also has continued to express strong reservations over a Third World > proposal for a major international conference to combat terrorism. Addressing > the Ad Hoc Committee last February, U.S. delegate Robert Rosenstock said > such a > conference would have no practical benefits. "The issues suggested as possible > subjects at such a conference had historically confounded a practical > solution," he said. > > Rosenstock told the Committee that a conference on terrorism would distract > from pragmatic measures that could and should be taken - such as steps to > facilitate and encourage universal adherence to the existing 12 terrorism > conventions adopted by the United Nations. The U.S. delegate also pointed out > that an effective vehicle to discuss these issues would be the 189-member > General Assembly, which annually adopts more than half a dozen U.N. > resolutions > relating to terorrism. Rosenstock questioned whether an international > conference on terrorism would be "a useful stimulus or a costly distraction." > > The proposed conference, backed by the 119-member Non-Aligned Movement > (NAM) of > Third World nations, is expected to tackle several sensitive subjects, > including one of the most politically- divisive issues at the United Nations: > how to distinguish a terrorist from a freedom fighter. The proposal for an > international conference on terrorism has been kicked around at the United > Nations for nearly a decade. But it has failed to get off the ground > because it > has raised questions such as: Should military attacks by armed forces of any > state be deemed acts of terrorism when civilians are killed? To what extent > were NATO bombings of the former Yugoslavia acts of terrorism and > violations of > the national sovereignty of a U.N. member state? Is not the assassination of > Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza acts of state terrorism? > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> > FREE COLLEGE MONEY > CLICK HERE to search > 600,000 scholarships! > http://us.click.yahoo.com/47cccB/4m7CAA/ySSFAA/7XSolB/TM > ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> > > To subscribe to the Abolition Global Caucus, send an email from the account you wish to be subscribed to: "abolition-caucus-subscribe@egroups.com" > > Do not include a subject line or any text in the body of the message. > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ - - 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. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 12:47:24 -0700 From: "David Crockett Williams" <gear2000@lightspeed.net> Subject: (abolition-usa) petition to renounce potential first strike nuclear response to terrorism http://groups.yahoo.com/group/an-american-peace-movement/message/1 One simple and universally acceptable initiative that can be undertaken by an American Peace Movement in response to the tradegy of the terrorist suicide attacks on the United States of September 10, 2001, in memory of the victims and with the firm determination that such kind of thing should never happen again, is to mobilize US and global public opinion to seek a public commitment from President Bush that US first-strike nuclear weapons will not be used in the coming war that he has declared on terrorism, in spite of the United States' continuing "first-strike policy" reserving the right to use nuclear weapons to impose its will on the world, a policy in violation of the repeatedly expressed UN ban on weapons of mass destruction starting with the 1945 UN Charter language banning the use of such weapons. Such a US renunciation of the potential use of first-strike use of nuclear weapons in this present "war on terrorism" situation will bring public opinion to bear on the need, after such decision by President Bush, to consider renunciation of the overall US nuclear first-strike policy maintained since the atomic bombings of the civilian noncombatant populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, bombings which both symbolize and began the terror of the threat of global nuclear war, the nuclear arms race, and the continuing dangers of nuclear holocaust from accidental or intential use of nuclear weapons by nations or terrorists. Consideration of this US renunciation of any first-strike response to terrorism and subsequent consideration of abandonment of US first-strike nuclear policy will logically lead to consideration of the abolition of nuclear weapons entirely and the reapplication of their costs to funding human needs instead, as per the Nuclear Disarmament and Economic Conversion Act again introduced to Congress by DC Congresswoman Norton which would authorize the President to begin a multi-lateral complete nuclear disarmament after his certification of such agreement from all other nations. http://www.prop1.org Please spread this idea to your readers with the goal of obtaining worldwide support for this "no US first-strike nuclear response in the war on terrorism" decision by President Bush, a decision to be made as soon as possible before the upcoming December 25, 2001, 2000th anniversary of the birth of Jesus Christ, the "technical" end of the Second Millennium and the beginning of The Third Millennium. On behalf of the memory of all those victimized by war and violence and the fears and traumas of same, I pray for universal support of this idea and that this message be copied to all activists and media with your endorsement. David Crockett Williams, September 16, 2001 (100days until 12-25-01) an American Peace Movement member http://groups.yahoo.com/group/an-american-peace-movement - - 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. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 16:44:21 -0500 From: "Boyle, Francis" <FBOYLE@LAW.UIUC.EDU> Subject: (abolition-usa) FW: NO RUSH TO WAR!/FOX/(fwd) - -----Original Message----- From: Francis Boyle To: Arabic-Info@Dartmouth.EDU Sent: 9/15/2001 7:00 PM Subject: NO RUSH TO WAR!/FOX/(fwd) SHOW: THE O'REILLY FACTOR (20:29) September 13, 2001 Thursday Transcript # 091303cb.256 SECTION: News; Domestic LENGTH: 3973 words HEADLINE: America Unites How Should the U.S. Bring Terrorists to Justice? GUESTS: Sam Huessini, Francis Boyle BYLINE: Bill O'Reilly BODY: THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. O'REILLY: While most Americans are united in their support of President Bush and the desire to bring Osama bin Laden and other terrorists to justice, there are some differing voices. Joining us now from Washington is Sam Husseini, the former spokesman for the Arab Anti -- American Anti-Discrimination Committee, and from Urbana, Illinois, is Francis Boyle, an international law professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.......... O'REILLY: Cut his mike. All right, now, Mr. Boyle, Professor Boyle, let's have a little bit more of a rational discussion here. That was absurd. The United States now has to take action against certain segments in this world who we know have been harbouring people like Osama bin Laden. That's going to happen. How will you react to that? FRANCIS BOYLE, LAW PROFESSOR: Well, first I think you have to look at the law involved. Clearly what we have here, under United States domestic law and statutes, is an act of international terrorism that should be treated as such. It is not yet elevated to an act of war. For an act of war, we need proof that a foreign state actually ordered or launched an attack upon the United States of America. So far, we do not yet have that evidence. We could... O'REILLY: All right, now why are you, why are you, why are you taking this position when you know forces have attacked the United States. Now, maybe they don't have a country, but they are forces. They have attacked the United States, all right? Without warning, without provocation. Civilian targets. They've done everything that an act of war does. So, I'm saying that because we live in a different world now, where borders don't really matter, where terrorism is the weapon of choice, that you would declare war -- if I were President Bush, I would declare war on any hostile forces, notice those words, professor, hostile forces to the United States. I would have a blanket declaration of war so I could go in and kill those people. Would I be wrong? BOYLE: Well, Bill, so far you'll note Congress has been unwilling to declare war. And indeed, this matter is being debated right now. Right now, it appears that what they are seeking is not a full declaration of war, but only what we law professors call an imperfect declaration, which means a limited use of military force under the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Precisely for the problem that we don't know if any state was involved and we still do not know who was responsible for this undoubted terrorist attack upon the United States of America. O'REILLY: All right, but we have the secretary of state saying that Osama bin Laden now has been linked into and, you know, we don't have all the intelligence information, as President Bush said today. He's not going to give us, and he shouldn't, the people of America all the information that they have. But when the secretary of state gets up and says, look, we know this guy was involved to some extent, I believe him. And he's a wanted man, professor. He's been wanted for eight years. The Clinton administration didn't have the heart to get him and in the first few months the Bush administration didn't either. We now know, and you just heard the FBI agent say that Afghanistan has been involved for years harbouring and training these kinds of people. Certainly, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Iran, Iraq, those five countries, certainly have been hostile to the United States and given safe harbour to these terrorists. That's a fact. BOYLE: Well, let me point out, the secretary of state was very careful in the words he used. He said Osama bin Laden was a suspect. He did not accuse him. And, again, under these circumstances... O'REILLY: No, he didn't use the word suspect. He used another word. BOYLE: The account I read in, just off the wire service, said suspect. But let me continue my point. Under these circumstances, where we have 5,000 Americans dead and we could have many more Americans killed in a conflict, we have to be very careful, Congress and the American people and the president, in not to over-escalate the rhetoric, here. We have to look at this very rationally. This is a democracy. We have a right to see what the evidence is and proceed in a very slow and deliberate manner. O'REILLY: No, we don't. We do not, as a republic, we don't have the right to see what the evidence is if the evidence is of a national security situation, as you know. Now, I'm trusting my government to do the right thing, here. I am trusting. But I think it's beyond a doubt right now, beyond a reasonable doubt, which is, as you know, a court of law standard, that there are at least five, North Korea you could put in to, six states in the world that have harboured continually these terrorists. Now, we know that this was a well-coordinated effort. Our initial intelligence shows that some of the people that have been arrested have ties to Osama bin Laden. We know, as you just heard the FBI agent say, that the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center was tied in to a guy who knew bin Laden. So, bin Laden -- I agree with you, that you don't want to be a hothead. You don't want to overreact. You don't want to lob a missile at the pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan, which was terrible, and that was the one good point, or fair point, that Mr. Husseini made, you don't want to do that. But, on the other hand, professor, I think Americans are rightful, are right, to demand action against states that we know in the past have harboured these individuals and there's a warrant out for Osama bin Laden's arrest. So, if he is in Afghanistan, I would give that government a couple of days to hand him over, and if they did not, I'd go in. BOYLE: Well, again. The American people are right. We need to see the evidence. I remember people saying a generation ago, during the Vietnam war, I trusted my government. And I think people of my generation found out that that was wrong. We needed more evidence. O'REILLY: All right. Professor, let me stop you there, though. This is another point that Mr. Husseini tried to make. Just because the United States of America has made mistakes in the past, does not mean that we cannot defend ourselves now. This is a unique situation in history. We have now been attacked by forces without borders, OK? We've been attacked. And it hasn't been a military attack, it's been an attack on civilians. The reason, the sole reason a federal government exists is to protect the people of the United States. And as I said in my "Talking Points" memo, they haven't really done the job, for political reasons. But now's the time to correct those things. So, there's going to be a reckoning, Professor. You know it's going to happen. I know it's going to happen. And it's going to come down on Osama bin Laden first and maybe some of these rouge states later. Will you support that action? BOYLE: Before I support a war that will jeopardize the lives of tens of thousands of our servicemen and women, I want to see the evidence that we are relying on to justify this. So far, I do not see it. I see allegations. I see innuendo. I see winks and I see nods, but I do not see the evidence that you need under international law and the United States constitution so far to go to war. Maybe that evidence will be there, but it is not there now. My recommendation to Congress is to slow down, let's see what develops and let's see what this evidence is before we knowingly go out and not only kill large numbers of people, perhaps in Afghanistan and other countries, but undoubtedly in our own armed forces. 58,000 men of my generation will killed in Vietnam because of irresponsible behavior by the Johnson administration rushing that Tonkin Gulf resolution through Congress, exactly what we're seeing now. And we need to pull back and stop and think and ask the hard questions and demand to see the evidence first, before we march off to war. O'REILLY: All right, so it's not enough that people arrested in the bombings of the embassies in Africa testified in court that Osama bin Laden was behind and financed and coordinated those bombings. That evidence is not enough for you? BOYLE: Well, Africa is a very is a very different story than what happened in the World Trade Center. O'REILLY: No, it's not. He's wanted, he's wanted in the United States for the bombings of those two embassies. Is that evidence enough for you, professor, for the United States to go in and get this man? Is it enough? BOYLE: That, that matter was treated and handled as an act of international terrorism in accordance with the normal laws and procedures of the United States of America as a question of domestic and international law enforcement. And I am suggesting that is the way we need to proceed here... O'REILLY: Well, wait. You're dodging the question professor. BOYLE: ... unless we have evidence that... O'REILLY: Wait, professor. Professor. This is a no spin zone. Hold it. Hold it. Even out in Urbana Champagne, the no spin zone rules. You're dodging the question. There is an absolutely rock solid arrest warrant out for this man. Evidence in court, testimony by people who did the bombings that this man was behind it. Is that enough evidence for you to have the United States go in and get him now? Is it enough? BOYLE: The United States has been attempting to secure his extradition from Afghanistan. I support... O'REILLY: Yeah, that's long enough. BOYLE: I support that approach as international... O'REILLY: Come on already, I mean, eight years, we've been attempting to extradite this guy. Now's the time to tell the Afghans you've got 48 hours or 72 hours to turn him over. You don't turn him over, we're coming in and getting him. You try to stop us, and you're toast. Enough is enough, professor. BOYLE: That's vigilantism. It is not what the United States of America is supposed to stand for. We are supposed to stand... O'REILLY: No, what that is is protecting the country from terrorists who kill civilians. BOYLE: ... for rule of law. O'REILLY: It's not vigilantism. BOYLE: We are supposed to stand for rule of law, and that is clearly vigilantism. There is a Security Council, there is Congress, there are procedures and there are laws, and they are there to protect all of us here in the United States as well as... O'REILLY: So, you're telling me... BOYLE: ... as well as our servicemen and women. Look, Bill, if we allegedly, as you put it, go in, you are not going in, I am not going in. It's going to be young men and women serving in our armed forces... O'REILLY: And that's their job. To protect us. But, professor, let me, you know, what you're saying is, whoa, whoa, whoa, hold it. Hold it. Hold it. Hold it. B0YLE: ... with the constitution and the laws of the United States. O'REILLY: We're not violating any laws here, professor. No one is going to violate the law. There is going to be a state of war induced against states, states, terroristic states, who have attacked us. And what you're saying is, though, and correct me if I'm wrong, you're saying that even though there is a legitimate warrant out for Osama bin Laden's arrest, and even though most civilized nations would honor that warrant and turn him over to us, extradite him to us, the vast majority of nations on earth would do that, you still are opposed for the United States to demand that the Taliban government arrest this man and turn him over? You are opposed to that? BOYLE: During the Gulf War, President Bush's father, who has far more experience that the current president Bush, got a Security Council resolution authorizing the United States of America to use force to expel Iraq from Kuwait. Second, President Bush's father got a War Powers Authorization Resolution from Congress that gave him the constitutional authority to use military force to enforce that Security Council resolution. What I'm calling for here is the same adherence to international law and the United States constitution that the first President Bush adhered to in dealing with Iraq. O'REILLY: Well, you'll get that, professor. That's just a formality. There -- nobody on Capitol Hill right now, they're not going to -- there's no profile of courages up there anyway, usually. They're going to give President Bush what he wants. If he wants a War Powers Act, they're going to give it to him. He wants a declaration, they're going to give it to him. BOYLE: Actually, they're arguing about it right now... O'REILLY: They're going to give it to him. But I'm not interested in that, because it's going to happen. It's going to happen. BOYLE: The reports -- no, the reports I read was that this President Bush initially asked for a blank check, and Congress balked because they had been suckered once before... O'REILLY: All right, I'm not -- speculation is not what I'm in -- all right, professor. I don't want to speculate. I'm just going to say in my opinion he's going to have the authority to go in and get Osama bin Laden and his pals, wherever they are. He will get that authority, whether it takes a day or a week, he'll get it. And once he gets it, now, that's what I want to talk about here. Once he gets it, are you and others like you going to say, oh, no, we shouldn't do this, even though we have proof of the man's -- masterminded the bombings in Africa and the Cole,testimony in Yemen, are you going to still say, even after the authority is granted by Congress, which it will be, no, don't do it, let Afghanistan handle him? Are you going to still do that, professor? BOYLE: Second, like his father, his father also got authorization from the United States, the United Nations Security Council under chapter seven of the United Nations charter... O'REILLY: Oh, you want to go to U.N. now? You want the U.N. involved now. BOYLE: Is exactly what his father did... O'REILLY: So what? BOYLE: And that's exactly right. O'REILLY: His father made a huge mistake by not taking out Sadam Hussein when he could of. BOYLE: His father adhered to the required procedures under the United States constitution and the United Nations charter that is a treaty and the supreme law of our land. I expect the current President Bush to do exactly what his father did before he starts engaging in a massive military campaign in Iraq or against other countries... O'REILLY: All right, I don't know whether he's going to go -- I know he's not going to let the U.N. dictate. He might go for a consensus. He's already got it with Putin and all of our NATO allies, he's already go that. Whether he goes -- I think it would be a mistake to let -- empowering the U.N. in this situation. BOYLE: Then why did his father do this? O'REILLY: I'm going -- we're going to wrap this up with this. I'm going to give my last summation and then you can give yours, I'll give you the last word on it. This is a fugitive we're dealing with here. He has now been tied in by U.S. intelligence agencies, according to Attorney General Ashcroft and the secretary of state, tied into this horrendous bombing here in New York. The United States must make a response to this, and I am agreeing with you in a sense, it can't be a knee-jerk. It's got to be done in a methodical way. Congress will go along, they may debate it or whatever, but they will go along in either a War Powers, special War Powers Act or a declaration of war against forces hostile to the United States. Then they will go in and they will take him. This man you're looking at on the TV screen is a dead man. He should be a dead man. You don't do what he did and be allowed to walk around this earth. Now, I'm distressed, professor, by your reliance, reliance on the strict letter of propriety, when we've got 10,000 people laying in the street about 22 miles from me right now. I want deliberation. I want methodical discipline, but I also want action. We know who this guy is. We know the governments that are protecting him. We know the other rouge states that have terrorist camps there. They all have to be dealt with, in my opinion. I'll give you the last word. BOYLE: Sure, I agree with you, Bill. He is a fugitive from justice and this should be handled as a matter as other fugitives from justice of international law enforcement. If indeed there is evidence that a foreign state orchestrated and ordered an attack against the United States then clearly that is an act of war that should be dealt with as such... O'REILLY: What about harbouring? BOYLE: Right now... O'REILLY: Is harbouring an act of war? BOYLE: In my opinion, no. And under the current circumstances, I don't see it. O'REILLY: All right, professor. BOYLE: I think there is a distinction here. O'REILLY: OK, all right, wrap it up, if you would. BOYLE: I agree -- I agree that the -- if we go to war in a hasty manner here, we could see thousands of U.S. military personnel being killed without proper authorization by Congress or by the United Nations Security Council. O'REILLY: OK. BOYLE: Our founding fathers decided that the most awesome decision we would ever make would be to go to war, and we have to be very careful in making that decision. O'REILLY: All right, professor, I appreciate it very much. Thank you for your point of view. BOYLE: Thank you, Bill. >Francis A. Boyle >Law Building >504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >Champaign, IL 61820 USA >217-333-7954(voice) >217-244-1478(fax) ><mailto:fboyle@law.uiuc.edu>fboyle@law.uiuc.edu - - 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. ------------------------------ End of abolition-usa-digest V1 #466 *********************************** - To unsubscribe to $LIST, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" 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.