- Francis A. Boyle is a distinguished University of Illinois
law professor, activist, and internationally recognized expert on international
law and human rights. From 1988 to 1992, he was a board member of Amnesty
International USA. He was a consultant to the American Friends Service
Committee. From 1991 to 1993, he was legal advisor to the Palestinian Liberation
Organization, and currently he's a leading proponent of an effort to impeach
George Bush, Dick Cheney and other key administration figures for their
crimes of war, against humanity and other grievous violations of domestic
and international law. Boyle also lectures widely, writes extensively and
authored many books, including his latest one and subject of this review:
"Protesting Power - War, Resistance and Law."
-
- Boyle's book is powerful, noble and compelling, and he
states its purpose upfront: Today, a "monumental struggle (is being
waged) for the heart and soul of (America) and the future of the world...."
It matches peacemakers on one side, war makers on the other, and all humanity
hanging in the balance. The book provides hope and ammunition. It's a urgent
call to action and demonstrates that "civil resistance (is) solidly
grounded in international law, human rights (efforts), and the US Constitution."
It "can be used to fight back and defeat the legal, constitutional,
and humanitarian nihilism of the Bush administration" neocons and
their chilling Hobbesian vision - imperial dominance, homeland police state,
and permanent "war that won't end in our lifetimes," according
to Dick Cheney.
-
- Boyle has the antidote: "civil resistance, international
law, human rights, and the US Constitution - four quintessential principles
to counter....militarism run amuk." Our choice is "stark and
compelling." We must act in our own self-defense "immediately,
before humankind exterminates itself in an act of nuclear omnicide."
The threat today is dire and real, it demands action, and civil resistance
no longer is an option. With survival at stake, it's an obligation.
-
- The Right to Engage in Civil Resistance to Prevent State
Crimes
-
- Post-WW II, US foreign policy adopted the political "realism"
and "power politics" principles that Hans Morganthau explained
in his seminal work on the subject - "Politics among Nations: the
Struggle for Power and Peace (1948)." For decades, it was the leading
international politics text from a man eminently qualified to produce it
and whose experiences under Nazism influenced him.
-
- His cardinal tenet was darkly Hobbesian - that international
law and world organizations are "irrelevant" when it comes to
conflicts between nations on matters of national interest. Ignore "reality"
and perish, but consider the consequences. They've has been disastrous
for America, at home and abroad, in a world of our making where life is
"solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." No law or justice
exists, no sense of right or wrong, no morality, just illusions of what
might be, and a "struggle for survival in a state of war" by
every nation against all others for one unattainable aim - absolute power
and national security at the expense of other states and most people everywhere.
-
- Political "realists" believe that when nations
respect international laws and norms and ignore the "iron law"
of "power politics," they invite disaster at the hands of aggressors.
Boyle believes otherwise and eloquently states it: "Throughout the
twentieth century, the promotion of international law, organizations, human
rights, and the US Constitution has consistently provided the United States
with the best means for reconciling the idealism (and aspirations) of American
values....with the realism of world politics and historical conditions."
-
- It can work the way Boyle documented it in his 1999 book,
Foundations of World Order: The Legalist Approach to International Relations,
1898 - 1922. In it, he offers a comprehensive analysis of US foreign policy
achievements through international law and organizations to settle disputes,
prevent wars and preserve peace. It included:
-
- -- an obligatory arbitration system for settling disputes
between states - the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in 1899 that's
still operating at The Hague as the oldest international dispute resolution
institution;
-
- -- the Permanent Court of International Justice (World
Court) in 1922 that was replaced by the International Court of Justice
in 1946 after the UN was established in 1945;
-
- -- the codification of important areas of international
law in treaty form;
-
- -- promoting arms reduction after relaxing international
tensions by legal techniques and institutions; and
-
- -- convoking periodic peace conferences for all internationally
recognized states; the League of Nations was established for this purpose
and later the United Nations with its functional agencies like the International
Labour Organization, WHO, UNESCO, and IAEA. Other affiliated institutions
included the IMF, World Bank, GATT, WTO and regional organizations like
the OAS, Arab League, African Union, ASEAN, OSCE and EU. To these add NATO,
the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (the Rio Pact), SEATO,
ANZUS and various bilateral self-defense treaties under Article 51 of the
UN Charter.
-
- These organizations should have worked. In practice they
don't, and Boyle explains why: compared to America's early "legalist,
humanitarian, and constitutionalist approach to international relations,
geopolitical (realpolitik) practioners of the Hobbesian" school prevailed
- men like Johnson, Kissinger, McNamara, Nixon, Byzezinski, Carter, Reagan,
GHW Bush, GW Bush, his neocon ideologues and countless others. They disdain
democracy, constitutional government and their essential principles: commitment
to the rule of domestic and international law, human rights, equal justice
and peace.
-
- Consider the cost. It's beyond measure and even worse
looking back, in spite of all efforts toward conflict resolution. Since
the nation's founding, America has been at war with one or more adversaries
every year in our history (without exception), and note the consequences:
-
- -- we glorify wars and violence in the name of peace;
-
- -- have the highest domestic homicide rate in the western
world by far;
-
- -- our society is called a "rape culture" and
three-fourths of all women are victims of some form of violence in their
lifetimes, many repeatedly;
-
- -- millions of children are violence or abuse victims
and get no help from the state;
-
- -- in a nominal democracy under constitutional law, aggressive
wars and domestic violence are normal and commonplace; peace, tranquility
and public safety are illusions and so are human rights, civil liberties,
the rule of law, and common dignity, and the reason it's so is simple -
it benefits the privileged few at the expense of the greater good.
-
- What can be done? Plenty, according to Boyle. "Concerned
citizens" and people of conscience are obligated to use our available
tools - domestic and international law and human rights as "checks
and balances against" government abuses of power in the conduct of
domestic and foreign policies. Otherwise, administrations can run amuck
and literally get away with murder and other major crimes of war, against
humanity, peace and the general welfare.
-
- Consider the alternative and what can be gained. By respecting
the law, human rights and other nations' sovereignty, US administrations
could defend the nation, conduct its foreign and domestic affairs, and
achieve its goals successfully without wars, violence and disdain for the
common good. At worst under an anti-Hobbesian construct, short-term objectives
might be sacrificed in part for more vital ones in the long run, and isn't
that what survival is all about.
-
- At his book's end, Boyle quotes Hans Morgenthau's comments
in 1979, just months before his death, and it's appropriate to mention
them here. Boyle asked him "what he thought about the future of international
relations" at the time Jimmy Carter was President. His response: "Future,
what future?....In my opinion the world is moving ineluctably toward a
third world war - a strategic nuclear war. I do not believe that anything
can be done to prevent it. The international system is simply too unstable
to survive for long." Arms reduction treaties are mere stopgaps and
will be unable to "stop the momentum."
-
- If Morganthau is right, the choice is stark and clear.
Continue our present path and perish or unite at the grassroots to change
an ugly, unsustainable system and let humankind survive. There's no middle
ground, time may be short, and who knows if enough still remains.
-
- Yet Boyle eschews that notion and dedicates his book
to hope through resistance. We must try and use our available tools -
the Constitution; UN Charter; Nuremberg Charter, Judgment and Principles;
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide; Universal
Declaration of Human Rights; Hague Regulations; Geneva Conventions; Supreme
(and lower) Court decisions; US Army Field Manual 27-10; The Law of Land
Warfare (1956); and our own profound commitment to resist and prevail whatever
the odds and consequences. Apathy isn't an option.
-
- History, moreover, shows these tactics work when enough
people commit to them. They ended the Vietnam war, and, in the 1980s, anti-nuclear
and anti-war resisters forced the Reagan and GHW Bush administrations to
conclude the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in 1987 and
the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) in 1991.
-
- Conditions today are far more grave under neocon rule
that disdains the law and all binding peace and international arms reduction
treaties. It:
-
- -- claims the right to develop new type nuclear weapons,
not eliminate the ones Morganthau believed will destroy us;
-
- -- ignores the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and intends
to test new weapons developed;
-
- -- ended Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty protection;
-
- -- rescinded and subverted the Biological and Toxic Weapons
Convention;
-
- -- spends more on the military than the rest of the world
combined, and it's getting worse; on February 4, the largest ever defense
budget since WW II, in inflation-adjusted dollars, was proposed for fiscal
2009 at a time the nation has no adversaries, should be at peace, but chooses
wars without end instead;
-
- -- disdains a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty to prevent
additional nuclear bombs to be added to present stockpiles already dangerously
too high; and
-
- -- claims the right to wage preventive wars under the
doctrine of "anticipatory self-defense" using first strike nuclear
weapons against any other state. Morganthau would say I warned you.
-
- Boyle says civil resisters like the ones he testifies
for represent hope. They're "the archetypical American heros"
whose names few people know - Richard Sauder, Jeff Paterson, David Mejia,
Ehren Watada, Kathy Kelly, Daniel Berrigan, his late brother Philip and
many other courageous, dedicated people for peace and equal justice. They
risk their lives and freedom for the greater good, pay hugely for it, and
Ramzy Clark once saluted them saying: "Our jails are filling up with
saints." We have a constitutional right and personal duty to support
them, join them, and resist our government's criminal acts. They must be
stopped or the alternative may be WW III and the end of humanity.
-
- Constitutional law supports resistance (not disobedience
that violates the law). The First Amendment protects the right to "peaceably....assemble
and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It doesn't
have to be lawful, just peaceable, so it's incumbent to resist when governments
act criminally and endanger public safety and welfare, and the law is on
our side. Resisters have the same statutory and common-law defenses as
criminal defendants - defense of self, others, necessity, choice of evils,
prevention of crime, execution of public duty, citizen's arrest, prevention
of a public catastrophe, and other defenses. If not us, who then?
-
- Federal courts abdicated their power and defer to presidential
lawlessness under doctrines of "political question, state secrets,
standing, judicial restraint, (and) national security." Congress as
well has power, but won't use it. If it did, imagine how constructively
it could exercise its appropriation authority under Article 1, Section
9, Clause 7 of the Constitution saying: "No money shall be drawn from
the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law...."
-
- Congress alone is empowered to do it. It controls the
federal budget that includes defense and supplementary military spending.
Foreign wars will end and new ones not begun if Congress won't fund them.
It's how Vietnam ended. Congress stopped funding it under the Church-Case
June 1973 amendment that cut off appropriations after August 15. Legislative
power is the same today, but post-9/11, Congress abdicated its authority
and defers to Bush administration demands on nearly everything, including
aggressive foreign wars.
-
- If the courts and Congress won't act, the public must
and if charged and prosecuted are protected under the Sixth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the right of trial by a jury of peers. Boyle explains that
the "American criminal jury system (ultimately may be) the last bastion
of democracy, the rule of law, human rights and the US Constitution"
against a criminal administration and whichever one succeeds it if it continues
lawless policies.
-
- From his experience, Boyle is hopeful because when American
juries understand government crimes, "they usually refused to convict"
civil resisters trying to stop them. Two precedent-setting 1985 cases stand
out as examples: People v. Jarka and Chicago v. Streeter. In both cases,
defendants used a common-law defense called "necessity" and were
acquitted. They were absolved of criminal liability because their actions
caused less injury than the greater one they hoped to avoid. Winning these
cases makes them applicable to more serious ones like crimes of war, and
against humanity and peace.
-
- Ahead, achieving victories or hung juries is crucial
to preserving our constitutional system under threat. A strong message
will be sent that ordinary people can confront government crimes and prevail.
As such, we have to try. Surrender or apathy aren't options. The stakes
are far too great.
-
- Defending Civil Resisters: Philosophy, Strategy, and
Tactics
-
- In an age of lawless government, resisters represent
hope. They're the "sheriffs," government officials the "outlaws,"
and it highlights the importance of seeking counsel and who to choose.
The person must believe in the accused and their cause and work cooperatively
with an international law expert to introduce these principles into the
proceedings as evidence.
-
- Many times, international law is the only defense, there's
plenty to draw on, and Boyle believes when a peace-loving, law-abiding
jury hears compelling evidence citing it, "there is almost no way
the government will be able to convict" resisters on trial. The jury
will either acquit, be hung, or charges will be dismissed before or during
trial. It's thus clear that a successful defense requires a jury trial
because too many judges support state authority and may deny evidence and
convict. That's particularly true for federal judges who are nominated
by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and over two-thirds on the bench
now come from the extremist Federalist Society.
-
- Proper representation and effective courtroom proceedings
are crucial and follow from civil resistance acts that at times means spending
time in jail. A good lawyer's job and Boyle's book are to prevent it, and
he devotes considerable space explaining how. It begins with a good lawyer.
After that comes:
-
- -- a proper defense that aims to win or at least get
a hung jury;
-
- -- introducing international law as evidence and relating
it to traditional common-law, statutory, procedural, and constitutional
defenses that usually include one or more of the following: defense of
self, others, property, necessity, prevention of a crime or public catastrophe,
citizen's arrest, and other legal choices; international law is part of
domestic law under Article VI of the Constitution (the supremacy clause);
-
- Article VI also includes treaties as the "supreme
law of the land;" so are Supreme Court decisions like The Paquete
Habana (1900) that stated "International law is part of our law, and
must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of appropriate
jurisdiction...." In United States v. Belmont (1937) and United States
v. Pink (1942), the Court ruled that the supremacy clause applies to international
executive agreements that don't receive formal Senate advice and consent
(the Senate does not ratify treaties as such);
-
- US presidents take an oath under Article II, Section
1, Clause 7 to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution...."
International treaties and agreements are included. In addition, Article
II, Section 3 requires the president to "take Care that the Laws be
faithfully exercised;"
-
- -- introducing the burden of proof in affirmative defenses
to force the prosecution to prove guilt by disproving this type defense;
the idea is to create a reasonable doubt about criminal intent;
-
- -- distinguishing "specific intent crimes"
(that many resisters are charged with) from general intent ones;
-
- -- defending the crime of unlawful "trespass"
by arguing it was done to uphold domestic and international law to prevent
the commission of a crime;
-
- -- establishing a pattern of criminal government behavior
to justify resistance against it; it may include but not be limited to:
Nuremberg crimes against peace, humanity, war crimes, breaches of Geneva,
Hague, the UN Charter, genocide, torture and other crimes including inchoate
ones, such as planning, preparing or aiding and abetting them;
-
- -- using appropriate international criminal law standards
in the US Army Field Manual 27-10 (that incorporates Nuremberg Principles,
Judgment and the Charter) and The Law of Land Warfare (1956); the Field
Manual paragraph 498 states that any person, military or civilian, who
commits a crime under international law is responsible for it and may be
punished; paragraph 499 defines a "war crime;" paragraph 500
refers to conspiracy, attempts to commit it and complicity with respect
to international crimes; paragraph 509 denies the defense of superior orders
in the commission of a crime; and paragraph 510 denies the defense of an
"act of state;" and so forth;
-
- -- pro se resisters (representing themselves without
counsel) must take special care to prepare a proper defense with one aim
- to convince one juror of their innocence; these and other considerations
are vital to an effective defense when it's you v. the state and judges
may be hostile. Resistance, however, is crucial because in Boyle's words:
"Today is our Nuremberg moment!"
-
- Trident on Trial
-
- In this and succeeding chapters, Boyle reviews cases
in which he testified pro bono for the defense. In each one, he explains
the issue, who was on trial, followed by a summation of the crucial portions
of his testimony that are text book examples of a proper and effective
defense.
-
- The Trident II strategic nuclear missile submarine is
the first example and is described as follows: it's the "most hideous
and nefarious weapon of mass destruction (WMD) ever devised" because
of its unimaginable destructive power. The US Navy deploys 14 Tridents,
the UK four others, and just one of them has enough nuclear kilotonnage
to destroy much of planet earth and maybe all of it from nuclear fallout
- around 270 or more times the destructive power of the low-yield bombs
that incinerated Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
-
- Further, NAVSTAR satellite communications give Delta
V multiple warhead MIRVs on board pinpoint accuracy to make Trident ideal
for an offensive near-omnicidal first-strike capability. At patrol depth,
the extremely low frequency (ELF) system is the only way to communicate
with these submarines. For that reason, Plowshares defendant George Ostensen
(in 1987) engaged in civil resistance against the Ashland, Wisconsin ELF
facility and was charged with two counts of "sabotage." He faced
a possible 40 year prison sentence if found guilty as charged.
-
- Boyle testified for him and used the transcript as a
text for other Plowshares resisters to contest similar charges against
them. It paid off with two outright acquittals in 1996 and another in a
1999 Scotland case because juries were convinced that ELF/Trident II was
as dangerous as described above and thus criminal under well-established
international and domestic law principles. These verdicts led to a "stunning"
victory when the Navy announced it would shutter its Wisconsin and Michigan
ELF systems in September 2004. "Civil resistance had triumphed over
the Trident II," but these weapons are still deployed and threaten
all humanity by their existence.
-
- Brief excerpts of Boyle's testimony in his Ostensen defense
follow. The laws he cites are mentioned above so comments on them are brief
and not repeated for succeeding chapters.
-
- In Ostensen and other testimonies, Boyle explains domestic
and international laws relevant to the cases:
-
- -- the US Constitution; the supremacy clause under Article
VI stating that all forms of international treaties and agreements to which
the US is a signatory are binding on "all American citizens, government
officials, (the military and) courts of law;"
-
- -- The Paquette Habana (1900) Supreme Court decision
affirming that international law is US law;
-
- -- The Law of Naval Warfare (1955) and The Law of Land
Warfare (1956) both state that international laws bind all members of the
US military, government officials and American citizens; they clearly say
that international law limits the threat or use of nuclear weapons because
these weapons are so deadly;
-
- -- the Navy, Army and Air Force manuals incorporate the
Nuremberg Principles as binding US law; they include crimes of war, against
peace and humanity as well as planning, preparing, or waging an aggressive
war; also applicable is conspiracy, incitement, and/or aiding and abetting
the commission of these crimes; Nuremberg also rejected the defense of
superior orders; the UN General Assembly unanimously approved these Principles
as recognized international law in Resolution 95(I) in December 1946;
-
- -- the Army, Navy and Air Force field manuals are issued
to all members of the military today who are told they are fully accountable
for any Nuremberg violations;
-
- -- an outstanding DOD policy states that nuclear weapons
are to be developed according to international law requirements;
-
- -- Jimmy Carter's Presidential Directive 59 involves
the targeting of nuclear weapons as first-strike options; at the time of
the Ostensen case, no such official first-strike policy existed; that changed
under the December 2001 Nuclear Policy Review; it affirmed the right to
declare and wage future preventive wars using first- strike nuclear weapons;
Trident II/Delta V submarines are nuclear first-stike WMDs; so is the ELF
communication system;
-
- -- the first-strike option is clearly illegal under Nuremberg
Principles as well as the 1907 Hague Regulations that require an ultimatum
or formal declaration of war; no nation has the "right" to affirm
a policy of "deterrence" to threaten or destroy another one,
let alone all humanity by nuclear weapons; that's very clear under Nuremberg.
-
- The Constitutionality of President George HW Bush's War
against Iraq on Trial (The Gulf War)
-
- Boyle testified at the trial of Marine Corps Corporal
Jeffrey Paterson. Over time, his military obligations increasingly conflicted
with his moral beliefs. Things came to a head when he was told he'd likely
be sent to the Persian Gulf as part of the military buildup prior to the
Gulf War. On grounds of conscientious objection, he applied to be discharged
and was refused even though the law states:
-
- "To qualify for discharge from military service
as a conscientious objector, an applicant must establish that:
-
- (1) he or she is opposed to war in any form - Gillette
v. United States (1971);
-
- (2) his or her objection is founded in deeply held moral,
ethical, or religious beliefs - Welsh v. United States (1970); and
-
- (3) his or her convictions are sincere - Witmer v. United
States (1955)."
-
- Marine Corps Order 1306.16E requires that reasonable
efforts be made to assign minimally-conflicting duties while an application
is being processed. Nonetheless, Paterson was ordered to deploy to Saudi
Arabia on August 29, 1990. He refused to go, was arrested, incarcerated,
then freed pending court-martial.
-
- Paterson has an honored distinction. He was the first
military or civil resister to GHW Bush's "unconstitutional and criminal"
Gulf War. He was charged under article 86 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ) alleging his refusal to muster to deploy to the Gulf. On
November 1, his lawyer filed a motion to dismiss three charges on grounds
they were illegal. A special hearing was then held on November 19 before
a Marine Corps judge. He ruled for Paterson by concluding that the government
bore the burden of proof that must be beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
- It was "a great victory for peace, justice, international
law, the US Constitution, and civil resistance." On December 5, 1990,
Paterson was administratively released from the Marine Corps with an "other
than honorable discharge." His case was precedent-setting, "of
great historic significance," and it's applicable to all cases of
military and civil resistance against government crimes, including waging
wars of aggression.
-
- The US is a signatory to the UN Charter, it's the law
of the land under the supremacy clause, and its Chapter VII empowers the
Security Council alone to "determine the existence of any threat to
the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression," and, if necessary,
take military or other action to "restore international peace and
stability." It lets a nation use force only under two conditions:
-
- -- under authorization by the Security Council; or
-
- -- under Article 51 that permits the "right of individual
or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member....until
the Security Council has taken measures to maintain international peace
and security."
-
- In addition, both houses of Congress, not the president,
have exclusive power to declare war under Article I, Section 8, Clause
11 of the Constitution that's known as the war powers clause. Nonetheless,
that procedure was followed only five times in our history, it was last
used for WW II in 1941, and Congress addressed the issue in 1973 when it
passed the War Powers Resolution.
-
- It requires the president to get congressional authorization
for war or a resolution passed within 60 days of initiating hostilities.
It also states in Section 4(a)(3): "In the absence of a declaration
of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced
-- (3) in numbers which substantially enlarge the United States Armed Forces
equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation; the president
shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives
and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, setting forth"
necessitating circumstances, a request for "constitutional and legislative
authority," and the "estimated scope and duration of the hostilities
or involvement."
-
- Congress gave GHW Bush this authority on January 14,
1991. It did not give it to George W. Bush, yet he went to war anyway in
violation of a host of laws, domestic and international. On January 15,
1991, Congressman Henry Gonzales, Ramsey Clark and Francis Boyle launched
a national campaign to impeach GHW Bush. Five articles of impeachment were
prepared.
-
- They apply as well today to GW Bush's illegal wars against
Iraq and Afghanistan, and Boyle states why as follows: "the House
can, should, and must impeach President Bush for commencing this war, lying
about this war, and threatening more wars. All that is needed is one member
of the House of Representatives with courage, integrity, principles, and
a safe seat" to do it. If not, the alternative is dire - wars without
end, a homeland police state and the end of the republic that's already
on life support.
-
- In testifying for Corporal Paterson, Boyle reviewed the
relevant laws already covered above. He also cited pertinent Supreme Court
decisions going back to Little v. Barreme (1804) and Mitchell v. Harmony
(1851) as well as Colonel William Winthrop's Military Law and Precedents
(1880, 1886 and revised and enlarged in 1920).
-
- Winthrop specifically states that soldiers are obligated
to disobey illegal orders defined as follows: ones unauthorized by law
or that are clearly illegal acts. In the Paterson case, there was no authorized
law, and he had no duty to obey a clearly unlawful order.
-
- President Clinton's Invasion of Haiti and the Laws of
War
-
- Noam Chomsky believes that every US president since WW
II could be impeached because "they've all been either outright war
criminals or involved in serious war crimes." Bill Clinton was one
of them. In November 1993, he sent troops to Somalia, supposedly for humanitarian
intervention, got no congressional authorization, and killed about 10,000
Somalis. He was then complicit in the 1994 Rwandan massacres (involving
no US troops), and on September 19, 1994 again acted illegally - he invaded
Haiti without congressional authority and violated the Constitution's war
powers clause.
-
- The 10th US Army Mountain Division from Fort Drum, New
York was part of the force sent. Capt. Lawrence P. Rockwood II was a fourth
generation soldier and career military officer with 15 years service. Yet
he jeopardized his safety, career and personal liberty to aid incarcerated
Haitians.
-
- He learned about horrific human rights violations inside
Haiti's prisons under its military dictator. They were especially bad at
the National Penitentiary in Port-au-Prince, he informed his superiors,
and then pressured them to take control and stop the abuses. Nothing was
done, so Rockwell acted on his own as the US Army Field Manual 27-10 and
international law require.
-
- On September 30, he went to the prison alone, inspected
conditions inside, saw firsthand how bad they were, and compiled a list
of prisoners' names to deter their deaths or "disappearance."
Subsequently, he was court-martialed in May 1995 and faced up to 10 years
in prison if found guilty of multiple charges.
-
- In fact, he was convicted of five specifications on three
charges under the UCMJ, including:
-
- -- failure to report for duty under article 86;
-
- -- disrespect for a superior officer under article 89;
-
- -- willful disobedience of superior orders under article
90; and
-
- -- conduct unbecoming an officer under article 133.
-
- -- He was acquitted of two specifications of an additional
charge of failing to obey an order and dereliction of duties under article
92.
-
- The court abstained from imposing a prison sentence and
instead dismissed Rockwood from the army with forfeiture of pay. In so
doing, the military jury affirmed his defense that he acted properly under
international law to stop grievous abuses inside Haiti's prison. He left
the army "an acknowledged and eternal hero to the worldwide human
rights movement."
-
- Appearing for the defense at his trial was an expert
witness, an authentic human rights hero in his own right - Hugh Thompson.
As a Vietnam helicopter pilot, he saved lives at the infamous My Lai massacre
by threatening to kill Lt. Calley and his soldiers if they didn't cease
slaughtering innocent civilians. Thirty years later, he won a medal for
it, and he told the court that Rockwood also deserved one as for his heroic
act. He fought for human rights and won, and Boyle relates his testimony
for him to laws of war and human rights violations applicable to the Bush
administration's Iraq war, its oppressive occupation, and the actions of
its puppet government in Baghdad for which Washington is fully accountable
under international law.
-
- It began with an illegal March 19, 2003 "decapitation
strike" against Saddam Hussein in violation of a 48 hour ultimatum
he'd been given to leave the country with his sons. That crime and trying
to assassinate a country's leader are also illegal under earlier cited
international laws.
-
- Next came "shock and awe," Baghdad was targeted,
and Article 6(b) of the Nuremberg Charter was grievously violated. It defines
war crimes to include the "wanton destruction of cities, towns or
villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity." Fallujah
and other Iraqi cities were similarly victimized (as were Afghan targets)
in spite of a May 8, 2003 joint US-UK pledge to the president of the Security
Council: that Coalition states "will strictly abide by their obligations
under international law, including those relating to the essential humanitarian
needs of the people of Iraq." Instead, laws are ignored and Iraqis
continue to suffer grievously under an illegal, brutish occupation.
-
- It includes the widespread use of torture that became
de facto US policy after George Bush's September 17, 2001 "finding"
authorizing CIA to kill, capture and detain "Al Qaeda" members
anywhere in the world and rendition them to secret black site prisons for
interrogation, presumed to include torture. Soon after on January 25, 2002,
White House Counsel, Alberto Gonzales called the Geneva Conventions "quaint
and obsolete," and it was all downhill from there to Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo,
Bagram in Afghanistan and countless other torture prison sites. Included
also is a newly revealed secret Guantanamo one called "Camp 7"
for "high-value" detainees. It's gruesome to imagine the barbarity
inside under a president claiming "Unitary Executive" powers
to do as he pleases outside the law.
-
- In his testimony, Boyle again explained relevant laws
that were covered above. US governments and the Pentagon willfully ignore
them, George Bush flaunts them, and accountable civilian and military officials
to the highest levels are guilty under domestic and international laws
of crimes of war and against humanity and peace.
-
- President George W. Bush's War against Iraq on Trial
-
- US Army Reserve Staff Sergeant Camilo Mejia was the first
Iraq War veteran to refuse further involvement in the war as a matter of
conscience after serving in it from April to October 2003. Following leave
on return, he failed to rejoin his National Guard unit and filed for discharge
as a conscientious objector on grounds that the invasion and occupation
were illegal and immoral. The army, in turn, deliberately overcharged him
with desertion to send a strong message to other military personnel that
they, too, would be severely punished if they acted similarly.
-
- Mejia's May 2004 court-martial was a kangaroo-court show
trial to drive home the point. It was widely broadcast and reported to
all military personnel worldwide on internal Pentagon television, radio
and newspaper outlets. Acting improperly, the military judge disallowed
prepared defense testimony under the army's Field Manual 27-10, the Constitution
and established international law.
-
- Mejia was found guilty, a year in prison was imposed,
and Amnesty International declared him a prisoner of conscience, its highest
honor. Only after the verdict was Boyle allowed to testify during the sentencing
phase - but under strict limitations imposed by the (hanging) judge. Again,
he cited relevant domestic, international and military law, reviewed crimes
of war and against humanity under them, and explained the culpability of
commanders and government officials at the highest levels for abusing and
torturing prisoners.
-
- Other military resisters came after Mejia. One was First
Lt. Ehren Watada in June 2006 when he refused to deploy to Iraq and publicly
stated why - "as an officer of honor and integrity, (he could not
participate in a war that was) "manifestly illegal....morally wrong
(and) a horrible breach of American law." By his courageous act,
Watada became the first US military officer to face court-martial for refusing
to deploy to Iraq. He was charged with:
-
- -- one specification under UCMJ article 87 - missing
movement;
-
- -- two specifications under article 99 - contempt toward
officials (for making public comments about George Bush); and
-
- -- three specifications under article 133 - conduct unbecoming
an officer.
-
- If convicted on all charges, Watada faced possible dishonorable
discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and seven years in prison.
A military equivalent of a grand jury convened on August 17, 2006 to inquire
into charges and decide if they were justified. Watada called three expert
witnesses in his defense, and chose them well:
-
- -- former UN Iraq Humanitarian Coordinator (1997 - 1998)
Denis Halliday who resigned under protest because he was "instructed
to implement a policy that satisfies the definition of genocide (and already)
killed well over one million individuals, children and adults;"
-
- -- US Army Colonel Ann Wright who resigned her commission
as a foreign service officer in the State Department in March 2003 to protest
a "war of aggression (in) violat(ion) of international law;"
and
-
- -- distinguished Professor Francis Boyle, international
law and human rights expert, activist and author of this and many other
books on these topics.
-
- On August 22, the Army reported on the proceding and
recommended all charges be referred to a general court-martial. It began
in February under very constricted rules - denying a First Amendment defense
and disallowing one questioning the legality of the war. However, legality
issues were impossible to exclude, they directly related to charges brought,
and the prosecution introduced them at trial. In addition, Watada firmly
stated before testifying that he refused to deploy because of the war's
illegality.
-
- Unable to pressure him not to so testify, the presiding
judge declared a mistrial. He'd lost control of the proceeding, knew Watada
was on solid ground, and had to prevent his evidence from being introduced
to avoid the embarrassing possibility of an acquittal on one or all charges.
If it happened, the war's illegality would have been exposed and its continuation
jeopardized.
-
- Under the Fifth Amendment "double jeopardy"
clause, Watada cannot be retried on the same charges. It states that no
person shall be "subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy
of life or limb." Watada's triumph by mistrial was a powerful tribute
to his convictions and redoubtable spirit. It's also an inspiration to
civil resisters and all members of the military to follow in his courageous
footsteps.
-
- Boyle explains the urgency in his final paragraph that's
a powerful message for everyone: The causes of both world wars "hover
like the sword of Damocles over the heads of all humanity." Civil
resistance is our only hope "to prevent WW III and an (inevitable)
nuclear holocaust....Toward that end this book has been written."
Read it and act. Apathy isn't an option.
|