[A-List] Fw: High Crimes and Misdemeanors

["Christopher Black" <bar@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "ICPJ" <icpj@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <icpj@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 5:04 PM
Subject: High Crimes and Misdemeanors


> This is one of the best explanations of the ways in which Bush's war
> policies violate international and U.S. laws.
> Please distribute widely.
>
> ICPJ
> VISIT OUR WEBSITE http://icpj.org
> icpj@xxxxxxx
>
> ------------------
>
> >http://www.civil-rights.net/illegal.html
> >
> >High Crimes and Misdemeanors:
> >Why People Must Stop Bush's "Preemptive" War of Aggression
> >
> >by Carl Messineo and Mara Verheyden-Hilliard
> >
> >George W. Bush has declared his intention to wage a 'preemptive' war
> >against Iraq and is now seeking to strong-arm the international
community,
> >the U.N., and the Congress into support and submission. As members of
> >Congress rush to show their obedience and member states of the U.N. line
up
> >to receive the anticipated spoils of war, the administration is now
waging
> >a campaign to convince the people of the United States to fall into step
> >and finance with money and blood this war brought for conquest on behalf
of
> >the corporate and oil interests that make up Bush's true constituency.
> >
> >Bush's preemptive war is a war of aggression. The U.S. policy supporting
> >the war is not the rule of law, but the rule of force.
> >But no U.N. resolution and no Congressional resolution can legalize an
> >illegal war against Iraq. With pen to paper and votes of support, they
can
> >only commit to wilful ratification, complicity and responsibility for
> >illegal acts by endorsing a criminal enterprise.
> >A war of aggression against Iraq violates the United States Constitution,
> >the United Nations Charter, and the principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal.
> >It violates the collective law of humanity that recognizes the
immeasurable
> >harm and unconscionable human suffering when a country engages in wars of
> >aggression to advance its government's perceived national interests.
> >
> >The National Security Strategy: Blueprint for Global Empire
> >
> >On September 20, 2002, the Bush Administration issued its blueprint for
> >global domination and ceaseless military interventions, in its
> >comprehensive policy statement entitled "The National Security Strategy
of
> >the United States."The National Security Strategy sets forth the U.S.
> >military-industrial complex's ambition for the U.S. to remain the world's
> >superpower with global political, economic and military dominance. The
> >stated policy of the U.S. is "dissuading military competition"1 and
> >preventing any other world entity or union of states "from pursuing a
> >military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the
> >United States." 2
> >The strategic plan elevates free trade and free markets to be "a moral
> >principle. . . real freedom"3 and endorses a comprehensive global
conquest
> >strategy utilizing the World Trade Organization, the Free Trade Act of
the
> >Americas, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, among other
> >mechanisms.
> >
> >The Washington Post reports that the National Security Strategy gives the
> >United States "a nearly messianic role" in its quest for global
dominance.4
> >
> >The National Security Strategy confirms and elaborates what was reflected
> >in the January 2002 Nuclear Posture Review, that the Bush Administration
> >maintains a policy of preemptive warfare contemplating the use of
> >non-conventional weapons of mass destruction as a first strike measure.5
> >
> >Turning Logic on Its Head
> >
> >Bush's preemptive war policy is a war without just cause. Under
> >international law and centuries of common legal usage, a preemptive war
may
> >be justified as an act of self defense only where there exists a genuine
> >and imminent threat of physical attack.
> >Bush's preemptive war against Iraq doesn't even purport to preempt a
> >physical attack. It purports to preempt a threat that is neither issued
nor
> >posed. Iraq is not issuing threats of attack against the United States.
It
> >is only the United States which threatens war.
> >It is not a war for disarmament. It is the U.S. which has stockpiled
> >nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. It is the U.S. which is
directly
> >threatening to use these weapons against another country. It is the U.S.
> >which has bombed Iraq relentlessly for more than ten years, killing
scores
> >of innocent civilians.
> >
> >The Bush Administration turns logic on its head, twisting reality in
order
> >to create the pretext for its war of aggression. The Administration
claims
> >that the necessary prerequisite of an imminent threat of attack can be
> >found in the fact that there is no evidence of an imminent threat, and
> >therefore the threat is even more sinister as a hidden threat. The lack
of
> >a threat becomes the threat, which becomes cause for war.
> >By the U.S. Government's own claims, it destroyed 80% of Iraq's weapons
> >capability in the earlier Gulf War, and subsequently destroyed 90% of the
> >remaining capacity through the weapons inspections process. There has
been
> >no evidence that Iraq is capable of an attack on the U.S., let alone
> >possessing the intention of carrying out such an attack.
> >
> >Bush's Proposed War and Current Threats Violate the U.S. Constitution,
the
> >U.N. Charter and International Law
> >
> >Bush's preemptive war policy and proposed attack on Iraq cannot be
> >justified under any form of established law.
> >The preemptive war policy and Bush's threatened new military assault on
> >Iraq violates U.S. domestic law and international law. The warmongering,
> >preparations for war, and threats of violence coming from Bush, Cheney,
> >Rumsfeld, Rice and other White House and Pentagon hawks, are in and of
> >themselves violations of international law and constitute crimes against
peace.
> >
> >Article VI of the U.S. Constitution establishes that ratified treaties,
> >such as the U.N. Charter, are the "supreme law of the land."
> >
> >The Article 1 of the U.N. Charter establishes
> >"The purposes of the United Nations are. . . To maintain international
> >peace and sovereignty, and to that end: to take effective collective
> >measures for the prevention and removals of threats to the peace, and for
> >the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace and
to
> >bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of
> >justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international
> >disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace. . . ."
> >Article 2 states that all member states "shall act in accordance with the
> >following Principles"
> >
> >"...All members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful
means
> >in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are
> >not endangered.
> >
> >"All members shall refrain in their international relations from the
threat
> >or use of force against the territorial integrity or political
independence
> >of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of
the
> >United Nations...."
> >Under this framework, acts of aggression, such as Bush's threatened
attack,
> >are to be suppressed and force is used only as a last and unavoidable
resort.
> >
> >The U.N. Charter was enacted in 1945 in the aftermath of the devastation
> >and suffering of World War II. The Charter was enacted to bring an end to
> >acts of aggression, "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of
> >war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind."
> >
> >Disputes which might lead to a breach of the peace are required to be
> >resolved by peaceful means.
> >Chapter VI of the U.N. Charter, "Pacific Settlement of Disputes,"
requires
> >countries to "first of all, seek a resolution by negotiation, enquiry,
> >mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to
> >regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own
> >choice."
> >
> >No Resolution by the U.N. Security Council can Legalize a Preemptive War
or
> >First Strike Plan
> >
> >Bush has asked the U.N. Security Council to support execution of Bush's
> >policy of a potentially nuclear "preemptive" war, as if that Council
could
> >endorse a war of aggression. The Security Council lacks the legal
authority
> >to grant such permission. The Security Council, by affirmative vote or by
> >acquiescence to U.S. policy, cannot abrogate its own mandate. No
collective
> >action by the fifteen permanent and temporary members of the Security
> >Council can lawfully violate the Charter which is the sole source of
their
> >collective authority.
> >This is made clear in the U.N. Charter itself, which provides in Article
> >24, that "In discharging these duties the Security Council shall act in
> >accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations."
> >
> >While there are, of course, procedures by which collective use of force
may
> >be authorized by the Security Council to maintain or restore
international
> >peace and security (Articles 41 and 42) those procedures may not be used
to
> >endorse aggression in violation of the primary purposes of the U.N.
> >Charter. Article 51 of the U.N. Charter acknowledges the right to
> >self-defense "if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United
> >Nations until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to
maintain
> >international peace and security." None of the provisions allow for
> >authorization for Bush's war plans and first strike strategies. Any
> >resolution authorizing a preemptive war of aggression is ultra vires, or
> >null and void as beyond the authority of the Council to enact.
> >
> >The very issuance of the Bush doctrine of preemptive warfare and also the
> >threat to wage war against Iraq are, each, a violation of international
law
> >as a crime against peace, which is defined in the Nuremberg Charter as
the
> >"Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a
> >war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances."
> >
> >Responsibility for War Crimes
> >
> >Neither Congress nor the President has the right to engage the U.S. in a
> >war of aggression and any vote of endorsement, far from legalizing or
> >legitimizing global war plans, serves only as ratification of war crimes.
> >Under the principles of universal accountability established at
Nuremberg,
> >"The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime
> >under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government
> >official does not relieve him from responsibility under international
law."6
> >
> >The execution of economic sanctions by the Bush I, Bush II and Clinton
> >Administrations, which has caused the deaths of over one million people,
> >primarily children and their grandparents, is likewise sanctionable as a
> >crime against humanity under the Nuremberg Charter and under the
> >International Criminal Court Statute as "the intentional infliction of
> >conditions of life,. . . the deprivation of access of food to medicine,
> >calculated to bring about the destruction of a part of a population."7
> >
> >The Bush Administration has rejected the International Criminal Court
> >treaty signed by over 130 countries. This rejection is an admission of
the
> >administration's consciousness of guilt and of criminal intentions. The
> >Bush administration acts with a conscious disregard of humanitarian laws
> >and a stated intention to avoid accountability for their crimes under
> >international law prohibiting crimes against the peace, war crimes and
> >crimes against humanity. The National Security Strategy promulgated by
the
> >Bush administration states that the United States "will take the actions
> >necessary to ensure that our efforts to meet our global security
> >commitments and protect Americans are not impaired by the potential for
> >investigations, inquiry or prosecution by the International Criminal
Court
> >(ICC), whose jurisdiction does not extend to Americans and which we do
not
> >accept."8
> >
> >Endless War, Aggression and Terror
> >
> >Once this policy of preemptive wars of aggression is invoked by the Bush
> >Administration to justify unprovoked attacks against the centers of
> >population in Iraq, the doctrine will be used by the hawks in the
> >administration time and time again, and will also be adopted by nations
and
> >individuals internationally as a justification for the preemptive use of
> >catastrophic violence against centers of population worldwide. The
> >legitimization of preemptive wars of aggression will be used to justify
> >attacks against U.S. centers of population, and will bring greater
violent
> >retribution upon the cities and people of the United States for actions
> >that the government is taking in their names, without their informed
consent.
> >
> >The risk of suffering harm because of this doctrine is, of course, not
> >distributed equally among all residents of the United States. Those who
> >will lose their lives fighting in wars of aggression will be the young,
> >disproportionately persons of color, and those who must enlist in the
U.S.
> >military because of bleak economic opportunity. Those who derive their
> >wealth and security from the transactions of war, from increased oil
> >profits caused by global instability or conquest of oil rich regions, and
> >from the constant re-building and re-arming necessary to conduct endless
> >wars against countless peoples premised on imperceptible threats - - they
> >will have the means to acquire seclusion, protection and greater safety.
> >
> >Preemptive war will not stop with Iraq. Constant military interventions
> >worldwide are necessary to enforce Bush's stated policy of global
economic,
> >political and military domination. Just four days after the September
11th
> >attacks, the CIA presented its "Worldwide Attack Matrix" identifying
scores
> >of countries that the CIA wanted permission to attack. Bush approved the
> >CIA wish list, and authorized immediate covert and lethal CIA operations
in
> >over sixty nations.9
> >
> >Taking to the Streets
> >
> >As the U.S. moves at breakneck pace in execution of its stated policy of
> >global domination and overt military interventions, the need for the
people
> >to take action is urgent.
> >
> >Congress will not stop this policy of aggressive warfare and global
> >domination. Many in Congress are well served with the tithing of the war
> >profiteers and their corporate sponsors who see U.S. military domination
as
> >a way to enforce their interests, to exploit human labor at starvation
> >wages overseas and to drive down wages domestically, to mine vast sources
> >of environmental resources globally, and to impose and expand the reach
of
> >their "free" markets.
> >
> >The U.S. Constitutional framework provides that, regardless of who
> >temporarily holds office, all power remains in the hands of the people.
It
> >is time now for the people to take the reins of power back from those who
> >have stated their intention to act in violation of all laws that
humankind
> >has struggled to create to end global conflagration and prohibit wars of
> >aggression.
> >
> >When law will not restrain the government, the people must. We must take
to
> >the streets in mass numbers in organized and spontaneous acts of
> >resistance. The message must be clearly conveyed that if the Bush
> >administration refuses to be accountable to U.S. domestic law, to the
U.N.
> >Charter, to international law, to all known standards of just conduct,
then
> >the people of conscience within the United States will rise up to demand
> >accountability. And the message must be sent that the people of the U.S.
> >will not allow the Bush administration to spend the blood of the people
of
> >the United States and the people of Iraq who are not our enemies, in a
> >needless war for oil.
> >September, 2002
> >
> >The authors, Carl Messineo and Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, constitutional
law
> >and human rights lawyers, are the co-founders of the Partnership for
Civil
> >Justice Legal Defense and Education Fund, a public interest legal
> >organization in Washington, D.C., and authors of the forthcoming book
> >"Empire at Home: George W. Bush and John Ashcroft v. the Bill of Rights"
> >For more information, contact:
> >Partnership for Civil Justice LDEF
> >1901 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
> >Suite 607
> >Washington, D.C. 20006
> >(202) 530-5630
> >
> >www.civil-rights.net
> >
> >(Footnotes)
> >National Security Strategy of the United States, September 2002, page 29.
> >National Security Strategy of the United States, September 2002, page 30.
> >National Security Strategy of the United States, September 2002, page 18.
> >Karen DeYoung and Mike Allen, The Washington Post, "Bush Shifts Strategy
> >from Deterrence to Dominance," September 21, 2001, A1.
> >Walter Pincus, The Washington Post, "U.S. Nuclear Arms Stance Modified by
> >Policy Study," March 23, 2002, A14; Thomas E. Ricks and Vernon Loeb, The
> >Washington Post, "Bush Developing Military Policy of Striking First,"
June
> >10, 2002, A1.
> >Principle III, Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter
of
> >the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal (Adopted by
the
> >International Law Commission of the United States, 1950).
> >International Criminal Court Statute, Article 7, paragraph 2.
> >National Security Strategy of the United States, September 2002, page 31.
> >Bob Woodward and Dan Balz, The Washington Post, "At Camp David, Advice
and
> >Dissent," January 31, 2002, A1; Bob Woodward, The Washington Post,
> >"President Broadens Anti-Hussein Order," June 16, 2002, A1.
> >
> ><html>
> >
> >
> ><font size=5><b><a href="http://www.civil-rights.net/illegal.html";
> eudora="autourl">http://www.civil-rights.net/illegal.html</a><br><br>
> >High Crimes and Misdemeanors:<br>
> >Why People Must Stop Bush's &quot;Preemptive&quot; War of
> >Aggression<br><br>
> ></b></font><i>by Carl Messineo and Mara Verheyden-Hilliard<br><br>
> ></i>George W. Bush has declared his intention to wage a 'preemptive' war
> >against Iraq and is now seeking to strong-arm the international
> >community, the U.N., and the Congress into support and submission. As
> >members of Congress rush to show their obedience and member states of the
> >U.N. line up to receive the anticipated spoils of war, the administration
> >is now waging a campaign to convince the people of the United States to
> >fall into step and finance with money and blood this war brought for
> >conquest on behalf of the corporate and oil interests that make up Bush's
> >true constituency. <br><br>
> >Bush's preemptive war is a war of aggression. The U.S. policy supporting
> >the war is not the rule of law, but the rule of force. <br>
> >But no U.N. resolution and no Congressional resolution can legalize an
> >illegal war against Iraq. With pen to paper and votes of support, they
> >can only commit to wilful ratification, complicity and responsibility for
> >illegal acts by endorsing a criminal enterprise.<br>
> >A war of aggression against Iraq violates the United States Constitution,
> >the United Nations Charter, and the principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal.
> >It violates the collective law of humanity that recognizes the
> >immeasurable harm and unconscionable human suffering when a country
> >engages in wars of aggression to advance its government's perceived
> >national interests.<br><br>
> ><b>The National Security Strategy: Blueprint for Global Empire<br><br>
> ></b>On September 20, 2002, the Bush Administration issued its blueprint
> >for global domination and ceaseless military interventions, in its
> >comprehensive policy statement entitled
> ><font color="#0000FF"><u>&quot;The National Security Strategy of the
> >United States.&quot;</u></font>The National Security Strategy sets forth
> >the U.S. military-industrial complex's ambition for the U.S. to remain
> >the world's superpower with global political, economic and military
> >dominance. The stated policy of the U.S. is &quot;dissuading military
> >competition&quot;<font size=1><sup>1</sup></font> and preventing any
> >other world entity or union of states &quot;from pursuing a military
> >build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United
> >States.&quot;<font size=1><sup> 2<br>
> ></sup></font>The strategic plan elevates free trade and free markets to
> >be &quot;a moral principle. . . real
> >freedom&quot;<font size=1><sup>3</sup></font> and endorses a
> >comprehensive global conquest strategy utilizing the World Trade
> >Organization, the Free Trade Act of the Americas, the International
> >Monetary Fund, the World Bank, among other mechanisms.<br><br>
> >The Washington Post reports that the National Security Strategy gives the
> >United States &quot;a nearly messianic role&quot; in its quest for global
> >dominance.<font size=1><sup>4<br><br>
> ></sup></font>The National Security Strategy confirms and elaborates what
> >was reflected in the January 2002 Nuclear Posture Review, that the Bush
> >Administration maintains a policy of preemptive warfare contemplating the
> >use of non-conventional weapons of mass destruction as a first strike
> >measure.<font size=1><sup>5<br><br>
> ></sup></font><b>Turning Logic on Its Head<br><br>
> ></b>Bush's preemptive war policy is a war without just cause. Under
> >international law and centuries of common legal usage, a preemptive war
> >may be justified as an act of self defense only where there exists a
> >genuine and imminent threat of physical attack.<br>
> >Bush's preemptive war against Iraq doesn't even purport to preempt a
> >physical attack. It purports to preempt a threat that is neither issued
> >nor posed. Iraq is not issuing threats of attack against the United
> >States. It is only the United States which threatens war.<br>
> >It is not a war for disarmament. It is the U.S. which has stockpiled
> >nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. It is the U.S. which is
> >directly threatening to use these weapons against another country. It is
> >the U.S. which has bombed Iraq relentlessly for more than ten years,
> >killing scores of innocent civilians.<br><br>
> >The Bush Administration turns logic on its head, twisting reality in
> >order to create the pretext for its war of aggression. The Administration
> >claims that the necessary prerequisite of an imminent threat of attack
> >can be found in the fact that there is no evidence of an imminent threat,
> >and therefore the threat is even more sinister as a hidden threat. The
> >lack of a threat becomes the threat, which becomes cause for war.<br>
> >By the U.S. Government's own claims, it destroyed 80% of Iraq's weapons
> >capability in the earlier Gulf War, and subsequently destroyed 90% of the
> >remaining capacity through the weapons inspections process. There has
> >been no evidence that Iraq is capable of an attack on the U.S., let alone
> >possessing the intention of carrying out such an attack.<br><br>
> ><b>Bush's Proposed War and Current Threats Violate the U.S. Constitution,
> >the U.N. Charter and International Law<br><br>
> ></b>Bush's preemptive war policy and proposed attack on Iraq cannot be
> >justified under any form of established law.<br>
> >The preemptive war policy and Bush's threatened new military assault on
> >Iraq violates U.S. domestic law and international law. The warmongering,
> >preparations for war, and threats of violence coming from Bush, Cheney,
> >Rumsfeld, Rice and other White House and Pentagon hawks, are in and of
> >themselves violations of international law and constitute crimes against
> >peace.<br><br>
> >Article VI of the U.S. Constitution establishes that ratified treaties,
> >such as the U.N. Charter, are the &quot;supreme law of the
> >land.&quot;<br><br>
> >The Article 1 of the U.N. Charter establishes
> ><dl>
> ><dd>&quot;The purposes of the United Nations are. . . To maintain
> >international peace and sovereignty, and to that end: to take effective
> >collective measures for the prevention and removals of threats to the
> >peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of
> >the peace and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with
> >the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement
> >of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of
> >the peace. . . .&quot;
> ></dl>Article 2 states that all member states &quot;shall act in
> >accordance with the following Principles&quot;<br><br>
> >&quot;...All members shall settle their international disputes by
> >peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security,
> >and justice, are not endangered.<br><br>
> >&quot;All members shall refrain in their international relations from the
> >threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political
> >independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the
> >Purposes of the United Nations....&quot;<br>
> >Under this framework, acts of aggression, such as Bush's threatened
> >attack, are to be suppressed and force is used only as a last and
> >unavoidable resort. <br><br>
> >The U.N. Charter was enacted in 1945 in the aftermath of the devastation
> >and suffering of World War II. The Charter was enacted to bring an end to
> >acts of aggression, &quot;to save succeeding generations from the scourge
> >of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to
> >mankind.&quot;<br><br>
> >Disputes which might lead to a breach of the peace are required to be
> >resolved <i>by peaceful means</i>.<br>
> >Chapter VI of the U.N. Charter, &quot;Pacific Settlement of
> >Disputes,&quot; requires countries to &quot;first of all, seek a
> >resolution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration,
> >judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or
> >other peaceful means of their own choice.&quot;<br><br>
> ><b>No Resolution by the U.N. Security Council can Legalize a Preemptive
> >War or First Strike Plan<br><br>
> ></b>Bush has asked the U.N. Security Council to support execution of
> >Bush's policy of a potentially nuclear &quot;preemptive&quot; war, as if
> >that Council could endorse a war of aggression. The Security Council
> >lacks the legal authority to grant such permission. The Security Council,
> >by affirmative vote or by acquiescence to U.S. policy, cannot abrogate
> >its own mandate. No collective action by the fifteen permanent and
> >temporary members of the Security Council can lawfully violate the
> >Charter which is the sole source of their collective authority.<br>
> >This is made clear in the U.N. Charter itself, which provides in Article
> >24, that &quot;In discharging these duties the Security Council <i>shall
> >act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United
> >Nations.&quot;<br><br>
> ></i>While there are, of course, procedures by which collective use of
> >force may be authorized by the Security Council to maintain or restore
> >international peace and security (Articles 41 and 42) those procedures
> >may not be used to endorse aggression in violation of the primary
> >purposes of the U.N. Charter. Article 51 of the U.N. Charter acknowledges
> >the right to self-defense &quot;if an armed attack occurs against a
> >Member of the United Nations until the Security Council has taken
> >measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.&quot;
> >None of the provisions allow for authorization for Bush's war plans and
> >first strike strategies. Any resolution authorizing a preemptive war of
> >aggression is <i>ultra vires</i>, or null and void as beyond the
> >authority of the Council to enact.<br><br>
> >The very issuance of the Bush doctrine of preemptive warfare and also the
> >threat to wage war against Iraq are, each, a violation of international
> >law as a crime against peace, which is defined in the Nuremberg Charter
> >as the &quot;Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of
> >aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or
> >assurances.&quot;<br><br>
> ><b>Responsibility for War Crimes<br><br>
> ></b>Neither Congress nor the President has the right to engage the U.S.
> >in a war of aggression and any vote of endorsement, far from legalizing
> >or legitimizing global war plans, serves only as ratification of war
> >crimes. Under the principles of universal accountability established at
> >Nuremberg, &quot;The fact that a person who committed an act which
> >constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or
> >responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility
> >under international law.&quot;<font size=1><sup>6<br><br>
> ></sup></font>The execution of economic sanctions by the Bush I, Bush II
> >and Clinton Administrations, which has caused the deaths of over one
> >million people, primarily children and their grandparents, is likewise
> >sanctionable as a crime against humanity under the Nuremberg Charter and
> >under the International Criminal Court Statute as &quot;the intentional
> >infliction of conditions of life,. . . the deprivation of access of food
> >to medicine, calculated to bring about the destruction of a part of a
> >population.&quot;<font size=1><sup>7<br><br>
> ></sup></font>The Bush Administration has rejected the International
> >Criminal Court treaty signed by over 130 countries. This rejection is an
> >admission of the administration's consciousness of guilt and of criminal
> >intentions. The Bush administration acts with a conscious disregard of
> >humanitarian laws and a stated intention to avoid accountability for
> >their crimes under international law prohibiting crimes against the
> >peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The National Security
> >Strategy promulgated by the Bush administration states that the United
> >States &quot;will take the actions necessary to ensure that our efforts
> >to meet our global security commitments and protect Americans are not
> >impaired by the potential for investigations, inquiry or prosecution by
> >the International Criminal Court (ICC), whose jurisdiction does not
> >extend to Americans and which we do not
> >accept.&quot;<font size=1><sup>8<br><br>
> ></sup></font><b>Endless War, Aggression and Terror<br><br>
> ></b>Once this policy of preemptive wars of aggression is invoked by the
> >Bush Administration to justify unprovoked attacks against the centers of
> >population in Iraq, the doctrine will be used by the hawks in the
> >administration time and time again, and will also be adopted by nations
> >and individuals internationally as a justification for the preemptive use
> >of catastrophic violence against centers of population worldwide. The
> >legitimization of preemptive wars of aggression will be used to justify
> >attacks against U.S. centers of population, and will bring greater
> >violent retribution upon the cities and people of the United States for
> >actions that the government is taking in their names, without their
> >informed consent.<br><br>
> >The risk of suffering harm because of this doctrine is, of course, not
> >distributed equally among all residents of the United States. Those who
> >will lose their lives fighting in wars of aggression will be the young,
> >disproportionately persons of color, and those who must enlist in the
> >U.S. military because of bleak economic opportunity. Those who derive
> >their wealth and security from the transactions of war, from increased
> >oil profits caused by global instability or conquest of oil rich regions,
> >and from the constant re-building and re-arming necessary to conduct
> >endless wars against countless peoples premised on imperceptible threats
> >- - they will have the means to acquire seclusion, protection and greater
> >safety.<br><br>
> >Preemptive war will not stop with Iraq. Constant military interventions
> >worldwide are necessary to enforce Bush's stated policy of global
> >economic, political and military domination. Just four days after the
> >September 11<font size=1><sup>th</sup></font> attacks, the CIA presented
> >its &quot;Worldwide Attack Matrix&quot; identifying scores of countries
> >that the CIA wanted permission to attack. Bush approved the CIA wish
> >list, and authorized immediate covert and lethal CIA operations in over
> >sixty nations.<font size=1><sup>9<br><br>
> ></sup></font><b>Taking to the Streets<br><br>
> ></b>As the U.S. moves at breakneck pace in execution of its stated policy
> >of global domination and overt military interventions, the need for the
> >people to take action is urgent. <br><br>
> >Congress will not stop this policy of aggressive warfare and global
> >domination. Many in Congress are well served with the tithing of the war
> >profiteers and their corporate sponsors who see U.S. military domination
> >as a way to enforce their interests, to exploit human labor at starvation
> >wages overseas and to drive down wages domestically, to mine vast sources
> >of environmental resources globally, and to impose and expand the reach
> >of their &quot;free&quot; markets. <br><br>
> >The U.S. Constitutional framework provides that, regardless of who
> >temporarily holds office, all power remains in the hands of the people.
> >It is time now for the people to take the reins of power back from those
> >who have stated their intention to act in violation of all laws that
> >humankind has struggled to create to end global conflagration and
> >prohibit wars of aggression.<br><br>
> >When law will not restrain the government, the people must. We must take
> >to the streets in mass numbers in organized and spontaneous acts of
> >resistance. The message must be clearly conveyed that if the Bush
> >administration refuses to be accountable to U.S. domestic law, to the
> >U.N. Charter, to international law, to all known standards of just
> >conduct, then the people of conscience within the United States will rise
> >up to demand accountability. And the message must be sent that the people
> >of the U.S. will not allow the Bush administration to spend the blood of
> >the people of the United States and the people of Iraq who are not our
> >enemies, in a needless war for oil.<br>
> ><i>September, 2002<br><br>
> >The authors, Carl Messineo and Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, constitutional
> >law and human rights lawyers, are the co-founders of the Partnership for
> >Civil Justice Legal Defense and Education Fund, a public interest legal
> >organization in Washington, D.C., and authors of the forthcoming book
> >&quot;Empire at Home: George W. Bush and John Ashcroft v. the Bill of
> >Rights&quot;<br>
> >For more information, contact:<br>
> >Partnership for Civil Justice LDEF<br>
> >1901 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.<br>
> >Suite 607<br>
> >Washington, D.C. 20006<br>
> >(202) 530-5630<br><br>
> ></i><font color="#0000FF"><u><a href="http://www.civil-rights.net/";
> eudora="autourl">www.civil-rights.net</a></u></font>
> ><br><br>
> >For information about joining the October 26, 2002 National March on
> >Washington to Stop the War Against Iraq Before It Starts, and to learn
> >more about anti-war resources, visit
> ><a href="http://www.internationalanswer.org/"; eudora="autourl"><font
> color="#0000FF"><u>www.InternationalANSWER.org</a></u></font>
> >.<br><br>
> ><b>(Footnotes)</b>
> ><dl>
> ><dd>National Security Strategy of the United States, September 2002, page
29.
> ><dd>National Security Strategy of the United States, September 2002, page
30.
> ><dd>National Security Strategy of the United States, September 2002, page
18.
> ><dd>Karen DeYoung and Mike Allen, The Washington Post, &quot;Bush Shifts
> Strategy from Deterrence to Dominance,&quot; September 21, 2001, A1.
> ><dd>Walter Pincus, The Washington Post, &quot;U.S. Nuclear Arms Stance
> Modified by Policy Study,&quot; March 23, 2002, A14; Thomas E. Ricks and
> Vernon Loeb, The Washington Post, &quot;Bush Developing Military Policy of
> Striking First,&quot; June 10, 2002, A1.
> ><dd>Principle III, Principles of International Law Recognized in the
> Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal
> (Adopted by the International Law Commission of the United States, 1950).
> ><dd>International Criminal Court Statute, Article 7, paragraph 2.
> ><dd>National Security Strategy of the United States, September 2002, page
31.
> ><dd>Bob Woodward and Dan Balz, The Washington Post, &quot;At Camp David,
> Advice and Dissent,&quot; January 31, 2002, A1; Bob Woodward, The
Washington
> Post, &quot;President Broadens Anti-Hussein Order,&quot; June 16, 2002,
A1.
> ></dl><br>
> >
> ><br>
> >
> ><!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
> >
> ><table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
> ><tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
> ><td align=center><font size="-1" color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups
> Sponsor</b></font></td>
> ></tr>
> ><tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
> ><td align=center width=470><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0>
> <tr> <td align=center><font face=arial size=-2>ADVERTISEMENT</font><br><a
>
href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=246920.2960106.4328965.2848452/D=egroupweb/S=170
>
5759335:HM/A=1481646/R=0/*http://www.gotomypc.com/u/tr/yh/cpm/grp/300_flake/
> g22lp?Target=mm/g22lp.tmpl"><img
> src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ex/expert_city/300x250_flake.gif";
> alt="" width="300" height="250" border="0"></a></td></tr></table></td>
> ></tr>
> ><tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1
>
src="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=246920.2960106.4328965.2848452/D=egrou
> pmail/S=:HM/A=1481646/rand=154101425"></td></tr>
> ></table>
> >
> ><!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
> >
> >
> ><br>
> ><tt>
> >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<BR>
> >globenet-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx<BR>
> ><BR>
> ></tt>
> ><br>
> >
> ><br>
> ><tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
> href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/";>Yahoo! Terms of Service</a>.</tt>
> ></br>
> >
> ></html>
> >
>
>